User talk:Gadrane

Welcome

Gadrane, welcome to Wikipedia. Don't revert the Ken Wilber article anymore, or you will run afoul of the three revert rule. — goethean ॐ 22:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Accusation of sockpuppetry

I find it amusing Gadrane, that goethean of all people is admonishing you of the 3-revert rule, when he abuses this rule continually. Also, you are totally new to wikipedia. I really hope you are not goethean in disguise. ForrestLane42 05:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Integral thuoght template

II was moved to here. — goethean ॐ 17:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, OK. I didn't see any mention of it in the "Integral thought" template talk page. But can't it be in both places? And why are there two separate templates anyway? What's the difference between "integral thought" and "integral theory"? It seems to be drawing a pretty fine line just to emphasize Wilber and his work in the latter term. Is this difference in terminology actually established in general usage? --Grey 18:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments on KW Article

Regarding your comments, Grey, it is understandable that you wouldn't know much about the influence of Adi Da on KW, because KW emphasizes that he is a long time Buddhist to avoid the issue and you would have to wade through earlier "Daist" writings to see it. In 1979, Adi Da was criticizing scientific materialism, teaching that he was the first enlightened being in the west and that he was trying to establish a "western way" that integrated the best of east and west, was integrating Advaita and Buddhism, was criticizing cultism and the persecution of spiritual heros, claimed his behaviors were explained by crazy wisdom, and advocated a new stage of enlightenment he had attained. So KW actively endorsed Adi Da and his ideas as the greatest ever--most observers who know about Adi Da see "The Atman Project" (Buddhists which he claims to be don't advocate an Atman concept) as simply reworked "Daism", and the "Daists" rightly see KW as using Adi Da as a font of ideas which he reworked and popularized. "Daists" still use his endorsements, while criticizing his caveated recommendation of Adi Da, today.

"Evolutionary enlightenment" is simply a theory, and as advocated, totally inconsistent with traditional enlightenment, properly uderstood, since traditional enlightenment does not deny the relative evolution of entities and the relative planes, only that there is a permanent, separate ego involved in it rather than the One, and that when full enlightenment occurs, it is a case of absolute integration. Advancing the evolutionary theory is fine. But consider the evidence for it, and who advances it, and do they have hidden motives? Those whose claims of enlightenment were NOT accepted by their teachers, that is, Adi Da, the ex-"Daists" Deida and Bonder, Cohen, etc., who distort their own teacher's teachings. And those who make their living out of the concept, people like Ken Wilber, who nobody thinks is enlightened. Not to mention Georg Fuerstein, whose reputation as a scholar would be tarnished if he didn't come up with some excuse for his actions while a "Daist" and so claims that "tantra" is the highest path. If you haven't even attained what is generally recognized as enlightenment, and all you have is "cosmic consciousness" experiences and "deep awakenings", which the traditions specifically mention and say are well short of the goal, and can't even demonstrate the qualities (pervasive peace, equity, lack of ego, absolute insight into others, compassion for all beings, actions only serving others, freedom from all fear, etc), and need to distort the traditions to do it as these ones have done, such claims of having transcended traditional enlightenment are highly suspect and can legitimately be criticized, to say the least. Particularly since what they are describing is mentioned and explained in traditional sources, so no new ground is really being explored. And even KWs ideas on occultism and psychism are amusingly naive to those who actually do energy work since there is a big difference between speculation to fit a theory and practical knowledge gained from practice. A symbiosis of those who scratch each other's backs with motives for validating an unproven concept of enlightenment and an extreme form of crazy wisdom as a rationalization does not constitute proof of the validity of such ideas.

So try and keep an open mind, instead of just thinking critics don't understand him, and explore all the background on this issue, not just the material the KW organization cranks out and how they interpret the traditions. KW is human, his ego is big, his endorsements are speculative, and his reaction to critics is human rather than objective. Why do you think more and more long time admirers are turning away and citing cultic thinking around him? None of this means I do not think KWs ideas should be accurately reported simply because he isn't mainstream. --Dseer 20:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ken Wilber, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

request for comment

I have filed a request for comment in regard to ForrestLane42's conduct. If another user does not certify the basis for the request within 48 hours, it will be cancelled. — goethean ॐ 21:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ken Wilber. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 16:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

Da and Wilber

Grey, I saw your recent reversion at KW, and for now, I'm ok with the language as is for the sake of simplicity. But your reason for reverting was false, and proveably so. Despite your claims, it is true that KW first praised Adi Da most effusively, and only after the problematic aspect became to much to ignore much later did KW caveat his assertions. KW began by a public endorsement praising Adi Da's "Scientific Proof" back in 1979. His works took on a flavor of reinterpreting Adi Da, and then, by 1985, as seen here [1], there was still not a shred of caveat or doubt about Adi Da being the greatest ever, despite what was well known by then. His silence on the subject until 1996 virtually allowing his uncontested and uncaveated endorsements to be sold to the public without a word of caution, and his conflicted approach even after that, is well is well documented. This is all spelled out in detail in [2]. You may not like the inferences that can be drawn from that, but that doesn't change the facts. --Dseer 00:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, but my point was that he has also done both at the same time, and in such a short passage, and given the specific context of influences, I thought the change in wording was overly, overtly critical. --Grey 08:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, understood, that is why I wasn't overly concerned. In case it ever becomes an issue, just wanted you to make sure to have the facts. --Dseer 05:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

New User category

Hi Gadrane, I hope that you are well. I have created the user category Category:Wikipedians interested in Integral or Transpersonal theory. — goethean ॐ 15:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)