Journal
Guest Blog: Beyond No-self--An AQAL Appreciation of Identity: My Communication With a Zen Teacher (Richard Munn)
May 15, 2007 13:51

 The following is being posted according to Ken's generous offer. The posting of a submission doesn't imply that Ken or the editors of this site necessarily agree with any or all of it. Thanks, -Eds

 

Beyond No-self--An AQAL Appreciation of Identity: My Communication With a Zen Teacher

by Richard Munn
richmunn@gmail.com
iamnotthethinker.zaadz.com

 

This essay has been stimulated by many conversations with Zen and Theravadin Buddhist practitioners over three years of Buddhist practice but will concentrate on one course of correspondence between myself and a fully authorized Zen teacher in a Japanese lineage. I will highlight a few themes which arose in our discussion and while recognizing they arose in our particular discussion also assert based on my personal experience and Wilber’s (2006) work that they appear to be commonly taught in the Western Zen community. These themes will then be critiqued light of an AQAL perspective; the themes are that “zazen goes beyond structures”, that “zazen drops ALL tools” and that “skillful means is a natural spontaneous function”. I will acknowledge these theme’s truths however I will also highlight issues of gender, ethnicity and ego maturation to demonstrate the harm that can be conducted or ignored if one only attends to these themes and dismisses other realities, I will use structural and socio-cultural systemic analysis to highlight this, focusing primarily on gender but also ethnicity and developmental psychology....

In order to place this essay within its context as quickly as possible I believe it necessary to describe the conversation I had with the particular Zen teacher on which this writing is based in order that I illustrate as soon as possible the themes this essay will be critiquing. This essay presumes a prior understanding of Buddhist concepts and AQAL theory, especially that of Ken Wilber’s (2006) ‘Wilber 5’ model. The themes that I have extracted from my conversations with a British Zen teacher are supported as being more generically reproduced in Western Buddhist culture by Wilber’s (2006) chapter ‘Boomeritis Buddhism’.  In this conversation, conducted via electronic mail, I was attempting to open a dialogue regarding why accounting for developmental ‘probability waves’ of individual growth would help both student and teacher in ‘skillful means’, this was met with a reply that emphasized skillful action as a natural function occurring when one does not try to convince someone of something and that it is a ‘natural’ human skill. Within the context of this discussion this view was used in such a way that argued for the lack of importance in paying attention to relative structures of the self and how different epistemological structures can interpret and shape experience.

The second theme that emerged during our communication was that “zazen goes beyond all structures” and “zazen is the dropping away of all tools – that means ALL tools” (emphasis in original). This theme again was presented in such a way that the emphasis appeared to be on the exclusion or uselessness of tools or structures and again returning to ‘what is’ via the injunction of zazen is seen as the most important practice and injunctive enactment. While I want to explicitly recognize the deep spiritual value of the religious experience of zazen I also want to point towards the harm caused by only seeing the injunction of zazen as important and seeing other injunctions as somehow inherently suspect, useless, deluded and therefore not worth any investment. I will do this by highlighting the ways in which Buddhist communities in both Japan and Tibet have been known to propose explicitly racist perspectives and how only recognizing zazen does not address issues of race in the contemporary West. I will also acknowledge the ways in which women are consciously and unconsciously repressed through the patriarchal system of Buddhism found in traditional Tibet in order to demonstrate just a few of the very important ways in which zazen does not go “beyond structures” in application. 
Placing this essay within an AQAL context it become apparent that the critique I am offering of the meditative injunction is a critique of an over-reliance on a ‘zone 1’ methodology that privileges the interior perspective of an individual taken by a first person subject.  The critique I will be offering can therefore be called a critique of the ‘philosophy of the subject’ and will be enabled by an individual structural appreciation of an interior perspective (‘zone 2’) and by cultural and techno-economic systemic perspectives; zones 4 & 8 respectively. However this argument does not wish to ‘trash’ contemplative endeavors either and we will therefore now pursue an illustrated exercise of the individual interior perspective and display the freedom it offers.

Acknowledging meditation/phenomenology and the nature of self; ‘zone 1’

Who am I? Who is reading this page right now? Who is looking out through these eyes? As I sit here I can hear the gentle hum of the computers fan, I can hear the train going past, I can hear a distant droning noise that I am unable to conceptually identify, I am obviously not these noises, I am aware of these noises, these objects in awareness, who am I? 

I am aware that as I type feel my weight in the chair, I feel a slight ache in my back from sitting in meditation this morning, I feel my eyes as slightly dry and tired and bleary, I feel a slight irritation in my bladder from a minor surgical operation I recently had; I am aware of these things, I am not these things, who am I?

As I sit here I am aware of thoughts arising in my mind thoughts of the surgery I will soon choose to have, thoughts of my young cat who I believe is trying to learn about her world as disclosed by her perspective, thoughts of my life and identity back in the UK, I think about the people I have recently met and the experiences I have recently experienced. As I sit here I remember a film I watched last night and the beauty of the vision, the art, the philosophy, the acting and dialogue, these thoughts arises without any effort for me, as I sit here and make no effort to think thoughts still arise, the mind habitually thinks and I am aware of this. Who am I? When these thoughts disappear I remain, if the mind is silent or if the mind is thinking I still am, I am neither the silent mind nor the thinking mind, who am I?

As I sit here I am aware of an emotional flavor to my experience, I feel calm, anxious, angry, excited and happy, all in small amounts and in a way that changes and fluctuates. I am aware of these emotions and I remain when these emotions have gone, who am I? I am.

Renowned spiritual teacher Ramana Maharshi (1998) almost exclusively used this method of inquiry in order to free himself and others from suffering, which makes complete sense when suffering is equated with a false identification of the who one really is with a temporary object that will arise and fall within time. According to Ramana’s philosophy and the philosophy found within Buddhist sources at any point we identify with a temporary object (that is to say any object) then we inherently suffer, either we want the object to go away because it hurts us or we want the object to stay because we enjoy and we will miss it when it’s gone.  The definition therefore of suffering is identification with samsara, the cyclic existence of objects that torture us then disappear, with more torturous objects moving in to take their place. This philosophy and direct injunction appears to have a lot of validity based upon the direct experience of those who have practiced this experiment with their own consciousness, as attested by Ramana and many other religious practitioners, which I decide not to list here for the sake of brevity. This definition also seems to, and claims to, go to the very heart of suffering, that is the false identification of the self with that it is not, or to use different terminology the belief that there is such a thing as a stable separate self that can be harmed or damaged.  However problems can often arise precisely because this argument points towards the ‘root’ of suffering it that other perspectives of emancipation become seen as either unimportant or completely without use, while some individuals have gained considerable freedom from suffering using this injunction others’ suffering and the appropriate means of it’s dissolution have become marginalized discourses; the issue of gender will now be used to illustrate this very real problem.

Gender, the ‘male gaze’ & Enlightened ignorance in Traditional Tibet; zones 4 and 8

We now come to an important and often invisible subject within many contemplative discourses and practices, the invisible subject of women.  I will here argue that another reason a statement such as “zazen goes beyond structures” is true but also partial and dangerous if held as an exclusive view, is that it ignores a cultural systemic perspective and therefore does not see gender oppression due to its often unconsciously ‘male gaze’.  Judith Simmer-Brown’s (2002) analysis of the role the female/feminine dakini plays in traditional Tibetan Buddhism illustrates the way in which tülkus (reincarnated Tibetan lamas) are taken away from physical female contact in their family home from their mothers and sisters at a young age and placed within an all male monastic setting. The tülku then becomes schooled at some point in his monastic training to recognize an abstract female form known as the dakini, the exact nature of which remains somewhat unclear but can be described as a ‘spiritual vision’ or a guide that visits spiritual practitioners in visionary or human form.  The dakini however is nearly always, according to Simmer-Brown, described from the male perspective, having no real autonomy, self-sense or existence separate from the men that experience her; she is not given her own experience in the dakini literature. To use the language of Feminist thought the dakini literature and experience is always subjected to a ‘male gaze’ and this discrepancy is rarely, if ever, highlighted until a Western Feminist injunction and perspective is brought forth for the situation.

The objectification and oppression of an unconsciously male gaze on a spiritual vision possibly doesn’t strike one as the hugest breach of human rights the world has ever known however the bigger problem becomes apparent when we see how this perspectives translates to a large proportion of traditional Tibetan society; women. Simmer-Brown cites the literal translation of the Tibetan word for ‘woman’ as ‘born-low’ and as having its roots in the folk observation that women face more social challenges than do men and if a man and woman are of equal social standing the man will always be ‘superior’ to the woman. Simmer-Brown cites multiple reasons why this is a problem for women wanting to practice Buddha-dharma in Tibet; they cannot become ordained, when they practice as nuns they are segregated away from the supportive community a male receives and instead has to stay with a group of other nuns on the fringes with poor diet, educational resources or broader social support. Further reasons why women have a more arduous journey to study the dharma in Tibetan society is that they are often locked into familial structures in ways men aren’t, are often ridiculed for there desire to practice Buddhism in a transformative manner and if they do manage to become teachers are frequently ignored in trying to communicate with others. This does not even begin to address the broader problems that women face in traditional Tibetan culture aside from those who want to walk the path of religious contemplation.

Simmer-Brown finds it hard to discern why it is the case that women are negatively discriminated against in traditional Tibetan culture because in scriptural doctrine women are seen as equal to men and hold the capacity to become as enlightened men also.  I recently asked Diane Musho Hamilton a question related to this issue at a seminar entitled ‘The Integral Feminine’ as I was curious if she thought there was in inherent gender bias within the contemplative traditions.  We see a common theme to emerge from many contemplative traditions being a movement away from the world to the transcendent and then a movement back into the world, seeing it as a direct lived expression of the transcendent, this can be seen in Ramana Maharshi’s (1998) teachings as well as David Deida’s (2004) teaching and summary of many of the contemplative traditions. To use Deida’s presentation we can see the ‘World’ is mostly referred to by these teachers as ‘She’ and that the ‘Transcendent’ is mostly referred to ‘He’, with them finally coming together in non-dual Unity. I asked Diane if this represented an inherent preference for the Masculine and a view of the Feminine as ‘sinful’, ‘fallen’, ‘dirty’, ‘suffering’, ‘tempting’, ‘evil’ and something to be rejected. Diane’s response was an expression of the non-dual philosophy that the “real sin was to have a preference either way, for either ‘She’ or ‘He’”. However if this is the philosophy adopted by non-dual schools, including Tibetan Buddhism, why is it that both Diane Hamilton and Simmer-Brown are so aware of the large gender splits that occur in traditional contemplative communities?

I am going to suggest that in order to account for the discrepancy between contemplative philosophy and gnosis and social practice we have to account for the strong influence of the techno-economic base on gender relations within any given culture.  Here it is immensely useful to quote Wilber (2003, p. 176), citing Marx, that “not through introspection but through history do we come to know ourselves”, which is to say within an AQAL context that ‘zone 1’ injunctions such as meditation do not highlight the changing nature of gender relations with changing technological means of production. Marx’s life work was to display the formative influence technology has on the consciousness of people and the way in which this influence operates as an unconscious given within the collective psyche of the masses. Wilber describes the ways in which fixed gender roles are formed within an agricultural society due to the nature of manual labor being hazardous for pregnant women and around this certain beliefs build around all aspects of life, from partnership, employment, politics and also religion that create fixed and rigid gender roles for men and women. It is not until the beginning of the Industrial revolution and machine power comes to supplement human exertion that women start to be seen as having an equal role in the work place and, perhaps more slowly, in politics and religion. I will therefore suggest that even though Simmer-Brown highlights the cultural realities of gender by employing more than just the meditative injunction in her analysis and seeing more than just the meditative injunction as extremely valuable and valid she still finds it hard to account for the discrepancy between the philosophical assertion that women are equal and an unequal and rigid social system because she doesn’t account for techno-economic factors of traditional Tibet.       

Another reason why it is problematic to make such a statement of “zazen goes beyond structures” is that, as Judith Simmer-Brown highlights, improving the situation for women in Traditional Tibetan communities, is merely seen as operative in the egoic realm of samsara, a condition that is ceaselessly unsatisfactory and deluded, and therefore to act to improve this situation would make no real difference. To repeat this more clearly the contemplative community Simmer-Brown highlights states that to improve the social standing of women is pointless because it is only another form of samsara, however simultaneously the males in that society can hold the hypocritical position of power over women and this is not debunked on the same grounds as being samsaric, it is instead seen as ‘proper’.  Here we find another very real problem with the statement that “zazen goes beyond structures” and that is while moving towards improving the relative/samsaric condition is seen as a useless endeavor, as the above example from Tibetan culture demonstrates, the relative world is completely stripped of any evolutionary depth to its unfolding, it is merely seen as horizontally cyclic in its nature.  To adopt this view is to fail to recognize that societies and cultures actually develop and grow and in so doing give freedom for greater degrees of people in their doing so, from equal rights to women, abolition of slavery and much greater life span with the Industrial revolution to a huge shared culture with communication networks across the globe in the Informational age. Also to adopt this view is to privilege one ‘realm’ over another on the ignoring or down-playing of ‘relative reality’ and seeing ‘ultimate reality’ as the ‘best way forward’, this is exactly what is being conducted when the statement “zazen goes beyond structures” or that to try and integrate an AQAL matrix with a Buddhist framework is to not understand Buddhism. This is a very curious position for a Zen teacher to take, although a seemingly popular one as claimed by Wilber (2006) in his chapter ‘Boomeritis Buddhism’ because it is exactly not non-dual in practice, it is exactly to ignore the Heart Sutra’s declaration that “Form is not other than Emptiness, Emptiness is not other than Form” because it claims that Emptiness, the ‘going beyond’, is the most important and all relative structures need not be studied and appreciated on their own terms.

While I have presented this critique of gender discrimination I also want to mention the ways in which contemporary Western Buddhist communities have made explicit efforts to redress gender imbalance.  One such example is the San Francisco Zen Center and the including not only of a chant of a long line of male ‘ancestors’ in religious services but also the inclusion of highly recognized female teachers, which takes a considerable amount of time to chant and therefore reinforces in a formal and ritualistic manner that women can and have contributed towards and benefited from spiritual practice, both in the West and the East.  However to use an AQAL framework we can again not merely take this presentation by a Western Buddhist community for granted but rather see it as an example of the ‘relative world’ having depth and actually evolving. The inclusion of women in this context should definitely not be taken for granted but should rather be seen as occurring with a perspective beyond patriarchal constructions of gender that are supported by a techno-economic base that precedes the Industrial revolution. However while the Western context to this Buddhist group has highlighted the importance of equal gender relations unless the injunction of socio-cultural systemic observations are seen as valid, and not merely excused away by such statements as “zazen goes beyond structures” or that trying to bring gender equality into society is just another trap of samsara, that is to say “zazen goes beyond ALL tools”, the problem of gender inequality will continue. If the problem does not continue within the Sangha itself the problem will certainly continue within society if only the injunction of zazen is seen as valid or meaningful; it is obvious here to recognize that this puts a severe crimp on the vow to save “all living beings, whether weak or strong, in high or middle or low realms of existence”, as is chanted in some loving-kindness meditations in the Zen tradition. This is especially true if unconscious patriarchy continues to perpetuate itself through lack of recognition of an injunction that will show this repression for what it is and actually places women culturally in a “low realm of existence”. The work of Feminism is to liberate this phenomenon.. 

Acknowledging ethnicity, prejudice and agriculture; zones 8 & 4

As well as supporting a phallocentric perspective traditional societies with an agrarian techno-economic base are also known to support a perspective that is not fully sensitive, to put it mildly, to ethnic differences. This also translates occasionally into the perspective that spiritual teachers take as reported by well known and respected teacher Lama Suyra Das (Wilber & Surya Das, 2003) who recalls that he has met teachers from both Tibet and Japan that claimed Western students could not become as spiritually developed as either Tibetan or Japanese practitioners respectively. To qualify this remark, Surya Das also mentions that certain teachers in those countries also become frustrated with such a narrow perspective and seek to change people’s views, one such teacher being the pioneering Shunryu Suzuki Roshi.  However, what can help to explain why these teachers take such an ethnocentric perspective?  To help me analyze this phenomenon I will employ the research and writings of Cornel West and again make them relevant to social action in the world and also Sangha life.  This inquiry is again repeated in order to shed light on an area that meditation does not easily reach, some commentators may posit that the teachers who displayed racist opinions and actual social practices, such as not recognizing a Western practitioner’s spiritual capacity, are merely not ‘enlightened enough’, that there still exists a sense of separation between the teacher and the student and this is the reason for the exclusionary perspective. However the teachers that Surya Das mentions are very highly recognized as spiritually developed and we must therefore ask the question ‘how much more enlightened do these teachers need to become?’ There are obviously other reasons why more ethnocentric perspectives are found within Traditional cultures than Modern and post-Modern cultures.  We therefore turn towards the astute vision of Cornel West (2001) in order to discuss more deeply issues of race. 

In his work West highlights the way a dominant cultural ideology becomes introjected by minorities within a community. If this hegemonic, that is to say dominant cultural, view sees those of racial minority as a ‘problem’ then not only will the exterior socio-cultural structures repress and abuse minorities but the minority group themselves will in fact internally punish themselves due to seeing themselves through the hegemonic view which perceives them as ‘lower’.  A hegemonic view is difficult to detect precisely because it operates at a cultural level and is communicated in an almost invisible and ‘inherent’ way by the culture, the view is often seen by many as ‘how things are’, it is taught to the populace of a culture from birth and is reinforced often by the education system, cultural communications such as the media and is often reflected with a society’s systems of control. For this reason it is extremely difficult for an individual to merely introspect and see these patterns because the tools with which they are trying to view themselves are precisely the tools which have been shaped by the hegemonic ideology. A distance from thoughts can take place during meditation but never-the-less as soon as thoughts are employed to give an interpretation those thoughts will arrive immediately formed by hegemonic ideology before they arrive into awareness. The ‘philosophy of the subject’ perpetuates a ‘myth of the given’ and misses this reality because they do not take a socio-cultural systemic view.

The reverse is also true that if a minority finds it difficult to see outside of the introjected hegemonic perspective, even partly retaining that introjection after conscious effort to move beyond it in many cases, then the cultural majority will find it equally or more difficult to see through these shared beliefs, especially within a traditional culture who are developmentally prone to ethnocentrism. This being the case spiritual teachers will not automatically see through an ethnocentric view of spiritual practitioners from a foreign culture and they may also miss or dismiss racial oppression within wider society. This argument and dimension of society has been included to create a consideration of socio-cultural factors that influence perceptions of gender and ethnicity, the techno-economic base of a given society and the way in which unconscious cultural hegemony also adds to repression.  The factors of technology as well as hegemonic realities I will suggest apply to both gender and ethnicity and are both almost always missed by an exclusively phenomenological injunction.  We now move to the last analyzed factor within this work that is often missed by contemplative communities and can cause very real suffering for those involved; I now will mention developmental psychology and it’s relevance to Buddhist and contemplative endeavors.

Structuralism, the ways in which people grow & the development of perspectives; zone 2 realities

It is useful to see how an individual being matures to the extent that they can see ethnocentric, mythic constructions of contemplative traditions and correlate what kinds of views tend to emerge with this perspective, such as fixed gender roles, social hierarchy, and a rigid conforming notion of ‘how things are’.  It is useful when a teacher can see a student within this perspective and it is also useful for a student to recognize when a contemplative teacher is within this perspective. Here a distinction between a teachers relative personal developmental perspective, which may have ethnocentric flavors to it, and the pointing towards an Ultimate Truth revealed by contemplation (such as the ‘stateless state’ in Zen) and times in which these views become confused. Examples of this type of confusion abound, such as mythic Buddhists believing that Guatama Buddha will never be ‘matched’ in the depth and profundity of his Enlightenment because he is somehow inherently more Liberated than ‘ordinary humans’ or, to repeat from earlier, when post-Modern discourse is masquerading as the Dharma and not a relative perspective that develops and is not pre-given. To again draw from Wilber’s (2006) chapter ‘Boomeritis Buddhism’ we can see that the Dalai Lama, hailed by many as one of the most spiritually developed humans alive today, publicly declared homosexuality as ‘sinful’ and that this view was presented in the way of being a religious Truth, not the result of a certain developmental perspective, largely a homophobic mythic construction.  This type of perspective obviously and immediately creates many social and psychological problems for those involved in such a perspective such as intolerance of difference or intense feelings of guilt and shame for some homosexuals within such an ostracizing culture. Including a developmental perspective on epistemology can therefore greatly help separate what can be called a description of ‘Ultimate Truth’ and what is an opinion being expressed by a relative epistemology that grows and develops, bringing new and more encompassing perspectives with its unfolding. 

Another curious problem within spiritual communities can also be pointed out using developmental psychology and can be dubbed the ‘anti-ego stance’. This is found in many spiritual teachings however one teacher who seems to very strongly adopt this position is the internationally known and revered teacher and ‘Guru’ Andrew Cohen.  After seeing Andrew speak at one of his centers in London, UK, and after speaking with him personally I have had the chance to talk with a man who is recognized within the Cohen community as a sound representative of Cohen’s introductory material. During one of these conversations we started to discuss Andrew’s presentation of what he calls the ‘Authentic Self’, that being a realization of ‘Ultimate Truth’ combined with an ‘Evolutionary Impulse’ and a theme to the conversation started to alarm me quiet seriously. The speaker started to repeatedly say how the Authentic Self despises the ego and at one point mentioned that “the Authentic Self wants nothing more than to rip the ego’s throat out with its bare hands”; towards the end of the conversation the speaker told me the he felt “drenched in ego” and that “disgusted him”. While I personally believe that Cohen can be lauded for his integration of an evolutionary perspective and spirituality I feel his ‘anti-ego stance’ is both philosophical incoherent and also damaging to adherents of this view.  This perspective has been heavily denounced by Zen teacher Dennis Merzel Genpo Roshi in several public talks and workshops that I have attended as being counter-productive and stuck in a fixed perspective that is in fact not non-dual but instead clings to a perspective that hates the ‘relative’ self. This ‘anti-ego’ perspective also seems to be ill informed to the relatively permanent nature of the relative self (ego) that started to form at birth and only disappears at death; even the view that the ego is a thing to be ‘vanquished’ is itself by definition expressed through a relatively constructed, biologically, culturally, linguistically, technologically-shaped ego that has a psychodynamic personal history and develops through maturation! Accounting for a ‘zone 2’ developmental perspective greatly decreases the risk of this partiality having such a harmful impact as the self-hating comments this teacher of Andrew’s Evolutionary Enlightenment was expressing. Therefore again this perspective has been briefly noted in order to highlight the extreme usefulness of an AQAL view when appreciating healthy spiritual philosophy, practice and growth.

Conclusion

I have placed Buddhism, and more broadly contemplative training, within an AQAL context and loosely claimed this is useful as a means to bring forth their very real partiality. It would of course be absurd to criticize any system for being partial but it seems however necessary to criticize spiritual traditions or teachers that claim to be beyond completely beyond partiality or do not illustrate the ways in which their practice is partial. This is what I experienced communicating with a respected Zen teacher in the UK and it is an experience I have had with Zen practitioners in both the UK and USA.

The reason for me spending such a long time detailing a mere fraction of the harms caused by not realizing one’s perspective is partial is simple. It is harmful to claim one’s system, teaching or practice is complete when in fact it is leaving something out, be that physical health and education, psychodynamic learning and injunctions or issues of race, gender and development of the stable and enduring ego. The reason that a partial perspective masquerading as a complete perspective is harmful is because it closes off aspects of reality and suffering that remain unacknowledged and can even be denied a voice when they are trying to be seen or heard.  This criticism has been based upon a conversation I had with a Zen teacher in the UK who concluded our conversation by claiming I did not understand Buddhism because I was trying to include factors such as ego development and gender in our conversation.  Based on my personal experience and Wilber’s commentary of contemporary Western Buddhism in his chapter ‘Boomeritis Buddhism’ this unfortunate conversation is held as somewhat representative. I find this saddening because I have created a lot of personal and inter-personal suffering through my own unacknowledged partiality. I therefore dedicate this essay to a greater clarity of perspective for a greater number of people in the bid that this suffering becomes reduced, first by cognitive clarity and then in an expanded and engaged practice of liberation.

Bibliography

Deida, D (2004) The Way of the Superior Man; a spiritual guide to mastering the challenges of women, work and sexual desire.  Sounds True, Boulder

Ramana Maharshi (1998) The Spiritual Teaching of Ramana Maharshi. Shambhala, London

Simmer-Brown, J. (2002) Dakini’s Warm Breath; The feminine principle in Tibetan Buddhism. Shambhala, Boston

West, C. (2001) Race Matters. Vintage Books, New York

Wilber, K. (2003) Excerpt A; An Integral age at the leading edge. Wilber.shambhala.com

Wilber, K (2006) Integral Spirituality; a startling new role for religion in the modern and post-modern world. Integral Books, London

Wilber, K. & Lama Surya Das (2003), We Have to be Those Leaders. http://in.integralinstitute.org/talk.aspx?id=13

Wilber, K & Walsh R. (2006) Towards an Integral Ethics, Part 1; Thinking Vertically.  http://in.integralinstitute.org/contributor.aspx?id=54

Vertline-top
Vertline-bottom


« recent entry | return to index | previous entry »


  © 2015 Ken Wilberhome | what's new | professional | personal | cultural | social | cool stuff site design by ursa minor