Dharma Combat
Where Spiritual Giants Duke It Out
Blanket Criticisms
One general statement made regarding Advaita Vedanta, in particular the way that it is practically translated in the modern world, made by Andrew Cohen:
Click here to read this excerpt.
A similar statement is made, again towards the practical translation of Vedanta-type teachings, is made by Ken Wilber:
"After you realize that the manifest world is illusory, and after you realize that Brahman alone is real, then can you see that the absolute and the relative are not-two or nondula, then can you see that nirvana and samsara are not-two, then can you realize that the Seer and everything see are not-two, Brahman and the world are not-two . . ."
One compact "blanket criticism" of some schools of thought and cultural studies of the modern spiritual scene, by Ken Wilber:
"Many critics have harshly noted, therefore, that a boomer-driven, narcissistically based cultural studies would have these features:
social constructivism (so I can deconstruct whatever I want),
relativism (no universal truths to constrain me,
equation of science and poetry (no objective facts to get in my way),
extreme contextualism (no universal truths except my own),
all interpretation is reader-response (I create all meaning),
no meta-narratives or big pictures (except my own big picture about why all other big pictures are invalid),
antirationalism (there is no objective truth except my own),
antihierarchy (because there is nothing higher than me).
This would be laughable were those not the exact characteristics of most academic cultural studies in America . . ."
- excerpt from One Taste: The Journals Of Ken Wilber
One "blanket criticism" of spiritual teachers is general is that they teach only the method, system, or approach by which they achieved what they did. While this is certainly understandable, it often also assumes that all students will be equally successful using the same system, and also has the potential of limiting a students' awareness of other approaches, systems, and methods available, which may be better suited to their individual needs.
(Counterpoint: the opposite trap is the famous "hunt-the-guru" syndrome, where a student spends his or her time guru-hopping in the same manner as bar-hopping, and never commits to truly accomplishing anything. In some cases, it is best "not to mix your drinks.")
The opposite criticism has also been made, that teachers do not teach students the same "methods" or key experiences the teacher used or experienced in their own development; rather, they only speak "from the mountaintop," so to speak, from an "already-arrived" perspective which is, aside from inspirational purposes, is of little actual practical value for those climbing their way up.
For example, Cohen, Krishnamurti, Rose, and others all reported significant yogic "kundalini experiences," yet apparently afterwards seem to dismiss such experiences as irrelevant, incorporating in retrospect no aspects of such matters into their teachings; Gurdjieff, Rose, and others speak of the need for "groups," yet did a significant amount of their own seeking as solitary wanderers; many Advaida Vedantists say "There's nothing to do!" after twenty years of bone-crunching work . . . and so forth.
Talk about it:
info@LiveReal.com
Dharma Combat
Spiritual Arena
