stripping the gurus - Brahma Kumaris Info

228 STRIPPING THE GURUS
If the often-violent imagery in his characterizations of the allegedly
positive aspects of reported brutal spiritual discipline at
the hands of one or another guru-figure (which he himself has
never undergone to any meaningful degree) were the only problem....
If his indefensible endorsements of Adi Da in particular over a
two-decade-plus period were the only problem....
Sadly, however, none of those are even close to being the “only
problem” with the clothes on the (integral naked) “emperor of consciousness
studies.” (The means of gaining increased access to that
reclusive but enlightened, great spiritual being, are described at
Integral [2004a]. All it costs is a mere $10,000 for your membership
in “The President’s Circle.” Join today.) Indeed, those dozenplus
issues cast severe shadows across Wilber’s entire professional
work, notable aspects of which would again literally earn him failing
grades even at a high school level. If he and his admirers (including
the esteemed, and steaming, Dr. Beck) really want to “deal
with the Truth no matter what the consequences,” roasting each
others’ asses in whatever “Rude Boy” or macho ways, they can
start with that.
For, you see, Ken Wilber is not a genius.
Ken Wilber is not a “bodhisattva pandit.”
Ken Wilber is not “the world’s foremost philosopher.”
Ken Wilber is not even a “cogent and penetrating voice.”
Ken Wilber is simply a tall building in a small, prairie town—
a big, overfed goldfish in a small, isolated bowl; a nasty, condescending,
narcissistic ninny bunny in the blight-ridden garden of
consciousness studies.
Incidentally, it was only Wilber’s (2003) specific gross misrepresentation
of Bohm’s ideas, discovered by me on a July weekend
with nothing better to do than poke through his sprawling website,
that got me started on looking in detail for other problems with his
work. Had he known enough to keep his careless generalizing, selfadmiration
and pontification to himself on those points, I would
never have begun writing the Appendix for this book, and then the
present chapter. I would even have let his equal misrepresentations
of Bohm’s work in his (1998) Eye of Spirit slide, were it not
for his continuing, unprovoked, nasty mistreatment of that late,
truly great scientist, and subsequent proud and loud gloating at
purportedly having “superior” ideas.