stripping the gurus - Brahma Kumaris Info

NORMAN EINSTEIN 213
Conversely, Wilber has failed to see even obvious extreme alleged
“cultic” behaviors in the communities of other admired sages
in which he has participated. Do you imagine, then, that he would
be able to recognize the same characteristics in his own surroundings,
were he to slip further into functioning as the “cultic hero”?
(A pandit can thus function just as well as a spiritual guru can, as
numerous psychotherapy and political “cults” have long proved. As
Albert Einstein himself expressed [1950] the latter: “One strength
of the communist system ... is that it has some of the characteristics
of a religion and inspires the emotions of a religion.”)
I actually know of at least two “cult-aware” individuals (not
including David Lane) who have personally met with Wilber in recent
years. Both tried to get him to understand the dangers involved
in the guru-disciple relationship, particularly when it is enacted
under “crazy wisdom” or “Rude Boy” scenarios.
The result? Not even a dent in that thick, half-centuried
chrome dome.
So it’s not as though Wilber hasn’t been told, in that regard.
Rather, there are simply myriad topics where the man just doesn’t
get it, no matter how cogently you try to “dialog” with him. I would
not personally imagine, then, that the situation could be so different
when it comes to kw’s “Theory of Everything” and the Integral
Institute itself, in spite of his ardent protests to the contrary. For,
he surely will have viewed the aforementioned guru-disciple relationship
conversations as being a “dialog,” too, comparable to the
purported “free, extensive and cogent” discussions regarding his
integral model. And yet, he evidently learned nothing from them,
even when he should have been a student, not a confident teacher,
to others possessing a far greater understanding of the relevant
issues than he himself has ever had.
A “question and answer” session where one person “has all the
answers,” is in no way a “dialog.” And yet, judging from the reallife
examples which Wilber himself (2004) explicitly gives, he clearly
thinks it is. For there, kw does over 80% of the talking, and is
never wrong, in patiently explaining to his (fairly silent) conversational
partner how the latter has failed to understand his integral
notions.
So, to summarize this section: Wilber apparently sees “critical
appraisal” where there is none. He has also shown himself to be
blind to extreme alleged “cultic” behaviors and abuses, confidently
asserting that those do not exist even in situations where others