[Buddha-l] Religious, But Not Spiritual

[curt]

Erik Hoogcarspel wrote:
>  Just Platonism for Oprah fans, nothing Buddhist in it at all. Some 
> advaita though.
>

Please refrain from mentioning "Ken Wilbur" and Advaita together!

Is it just me - or does anyone else think that Ken Wilbur is a windbag? 
Wilbur parades himself before the public as a very original and wise 
thinker of deep and profound thoughts. I know many practicing Buddhists 
who consider him to be a great scholar.

All Wilbur really does, though, is peddle a watered down version of Sri 
Aurobindo's writings. (Aurobindo, btw, was not strictly "advaita" but 
explicitly acknowledged the merits, indeed the necessity, of dvaita and 
vishistadvaita as well.) Wilbur never actually studied with Aurobindo, 
nor has he ever studied with any spiritual teacher - or with any 
scholar.  He is a modern day "Professor Harold Hill" minus the charm. 
And that is a grave insult to crazy-wisdom teacher Harold Hill!

What's really a shame, though, is that Aurobindo was a great scholar (by 
both western and eastern standards) and a masterful writer - who wrote 
in English! Aurobindo doesn't need to be translated, interpreted or 
dumbed down - especially by someone who clearly doesn't understand 
Aurobindo's writings in the first place. Why anyone would waste their 
time with Wilbur's ersatz "scholarship" when they could be reading 
Aurobindo (or a good science fiction novel) is beyond me.

Curt Steinmetz