I think that if one reads Ken Wilber's books with an open mind, it should be almost impossible to think that he is a scam artist. He should be of interest to anyone who frequents this site with the attitude of "waking up whatever it takes", or who believes that all the traditions are valid paths to awakening, but he probably won't be of interest to those who believe that a certain school of buddhism is the only valid path.
Since MCTB is written from the former point of view (and lists other traditions and maps repeatedly) and the DhO seems to be founded on this idea of using any and all techniques to get awakened (but with an emphasis on the buddhist maps), I think Ken Wilber is potentially suited to the kind of people who frequent this site, as he is also a practitioner whose whole philosophical system is based on the idea that all the wisdom traditions are valid paths to awakening, and whose own practice was also primarily focused on buddhist practices.
And as you said, Daniel Ingram even recommends Ken Wilber's first book, Spectrum of Consciousness, in one section of MTCB, on page 334.
I think his Integral Model is absolutely brilliant. In terms of Morality training, with the relative side of the street, I think the Integral Model is an extremely valuable tool for putting together all these different conceptual ideas of reality. It is basically a theory of everything which actually includes "everything" that you could think to include without reducing them all to one specific field (unlike many theories of everything which subtly reduce all other theories into one specific area of prime interest (such as matter, or idealism), or leave out explanations for art, or genocide, (or have dismissive non-explanation explanations) or reduce the value of certain things and deny their richness in order for them to fit cleanly into the model). And it does so in an extremely elegant way based on just a few principles. In my opinion it really does this, and I think that is why so many people end up idolising him, because of just how perfectly it does this and how liberating it can be intellectually (which means more liberating in terms of actual practical living).
What Daniel Johnson says about cross-marketing also seems to be true, and I think it's one of the reasons so many people get put off Integral. That and also their branding, imho. Anything involving spirituality and money becomes very suspicious to certain types of people very quickly (and with good reason, but I don't believe that money should entirely be kept away from spirituality, especially if you live in a society where you cannot meet your survival needs without money. People being able to support themselves full-time in the spiritual market place is a wonderful thing in my opinion if their work genuinely helps people).
Daniel Ingram writes, on page 334 of MCTB: "The third point about integration and living in the world that I have had to learn the hard way is a concept that I recently heard articulated very well by my friend Tom in the phrase, "Right plane, right time," which was his way of saying, "Use the correct conceptual and paradigmatic framework for the correct situation." Like the simple lists of Part I, this phrase could be the basis of an entire book (see the difficult but excellent "The Spectrum of Consciousness", by Ken Wilber, which spends a lot of time explaining how to keep our paradigms straight and not mix them up). [...] One should be conscious of the conceptual frameworks that one uses when approaching each aspect of one's life, as some conceptual frameworks or ways of being may not be helpful or appropriate for certain situations."
I think this is one of the main reasons Integral is so strong. And I think that for certain types of people nowadays, we often are biased to taking a certain perspective as "primary" to leading our lives (such as an environmental one, or a psychological one, or a buddhist one), and for people who feel that many of such perspectives could all equally be primary but don't know how to make them all equally primary at the same time, the Integral Model sort of connects them all and ends that conflict. It can be a powerful aid in reducing the suffering of not understanding the form side of the street.
His work also brings out a lot shadow in people, and it's very clearly shadow because the criticisms are almost always simply about:
- his tone
- his attitude
- an icky feeling
- calling him a narcissist because he jokes about himself and behaves like any ordinary human being
but its rare to see actual criticisms of what he is actually saying. I think it's unfortunate for someone who wants to become more aware and kind to suggest someone else a scam artist, bullshitty, stupid, opportunistic, without having read any of their books or even knowing anything about their work.
I haven't read the Big Mind book or done the process, but have heard some interviews about it and read about it, and from what I understand it is basically a type of Pointing-Out technique, but one that is supposedly very effective and can be done with large groups of people. It's meant to show you states (such as ever-present Buddha Nature), not to move you to another stage (such as a Path). I think that what Ken Wilber means when he says "Once you get it, you can do it virtually any time you wish, and almost instantaneously" is that once you get a good clean look at the obvious ever-present witness, even in a state experience, you should be able to recall that state whenever you need to (state, not stage). That's not too radical a claim in my opinion.
"Or maybe Big Mind IS the greatest contribution to Buddhism in twenty years" or whatever, but I seriously doubt it. Do you have any other explanations for his statements?"
I have no idea whether it is or not, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility of buddhism evolving and new masters bringing new techniques to the table that can be more effective in certain areas than previous ones. That has always happened, all throughout the history of buddhism, every time it came to a new culture (as is happening now as it comes to the west). Hokai Sobol (who I believe was an early member here) has an excellent discussion about this on the Buddhist Geeks podcast (
).
I agree that it's a bit lame if you can't do the actual Big Mind process yourself with the book or CD.
some babbling speculation of mine on your ideas about Big Hate and Big Chaos... I think that you're right, that if you did that you would indeed get some repeatable and concrete voices, and if you asked Big Hate to talk about mankind indeed it would say the dark things we've all heard many times before about mankind, and isn't that the whole point? It's like you've just stumbled on precisely why Big Mind CAN work! If anyone can tune into Big Chaos and describe this common voice we all have inside us and understand it and resonate with it, why not the same for any of the other voices? I think it's a similar principle to why so many characters share the same traits and voices in cinema and literature and comics, mythology, etc, or why exactly we can feel a resonance or empathy with many great songs or pieces of art, because the artist tuned into Big Whatever when writing that song, translated it into whatever technique and form they use, and if we like that type of form then we get a nice dose of Big Whatever...