As Open Integral was initiated in large part as a reaction to Ken’s Wyatt Earp affair and charges of being a cult, here’s a recent discussion from ebuddha on the topic. What do you think?
Update on Integral Institute as a “cult“, or cult-like
by ebuddha on Wed 09 May 2007 05:27 PM PDT
Last year, when all the crazy-ness around Ken Wilber’s Wyatt Earpy posts began, I had been looking for the criteria checklist for “cultish” behavior. I had found one checklist, and blogged on that, but I knew there was one out there that was more comprehensive. (It’s clear that ANY checklist would have some points, as organizations have analogous interests, such as a cause, or getting new members, etc. Where is gets dangerous is if nearly every item on the checklist test, is “yes”. )
Today, quite by accident, I ran into it the checklist. So I thought it would be interesting to go through each check box, one at a time:
1, The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.
Well, certainly SOME people feel this way about Ken Wilber. But in my estimation, not many. Since this a on/off judgment call, I’m going with “no”.
2. Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.
This one isn’t even close – definite “no”.
3. Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).
While meditation is encouraged, as is the ILP, this is still a definite no.
4. The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marryâ€â€or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).
Umm…nope.
5. The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatarâ€â€or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).
There is definitely this going on, because, you know, integral is the highest form of being! . Given the terms of this checklist, I’ll give this a “yes”. Although, it must be said, most groups consider themselves on a “special mission”.
6. The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.
If the “us” is the 2nd tier, versus 1st tier, then yes. While I think, most of the time, in practice, people aren’t evaluated as “1st tier” or “2nd Tier”, the philosophy as such, DOES easily lead to an “us” versus “them” mentality. I’m going to go with “yes”, but with caveats. Still counts as a yes though, for these purposes.
7. The leader is not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations).
This is true. While there is a new CEO, and a board, as was seen last year, Ken isn’t really accountable to anyone – the power structure rests with him solely. It must be said, for any founder of a company, this is usually the case. It is the case for Anthony Robbins, or Chopra, or any single proprietor with employees. But still, this would be “yes”, on the checklist.
8. The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members’ participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).
No.
9. The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt in order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.
You have a little bit of this, in the 1st tier/2nd tier distinction, but not enough for a “yes”. No on the checklist.
10. Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.
No, clearly not.
11. The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.
Isn’t nearly EVERY group preoccupied with bringing in new members, from the democratic party, to the local rotary club? Not much evidence, but the checklist would be yes. Doesn’t really prove anything though. “yes”.
12. The group is preoccupied with making money.
Again, most groups are preoccupied with making enough money to function. In terms of an ‘extraordinary’ desire to make money -ponzi schemes or multi-level marketing, working on your friends – that would be a “no”.
13.Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.
Nope.
14. Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.
Nope.
15. The most loyal members (the “true believersâ€Â) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.
No.
So – what’s the total?
11 No’s
4 Yes’s.
Given the fact that at least 2 of the Yes’s in question have caveats to them, I think we can clearly, unequivocally, and authoritatively say that, Integral Institute is in no shape, way or form, a cult. Just an organization, with an enthusiastic mission to spread one philosopher’s views.
Now, as an alternative, if this same checklist were to be utilized for Andrew Cohen the Guru – my, my my, how quickly we get more yes’s! Very quickly you find out that yes, Cohen as Guru groups are, organizationally, a cult.
This is from Matthew Dallman, who replied at ebuddha’s original article:
by md on Sat 12 May 2007 08:44 AM PDT
Actually, that sounds about wrong. Dudes, people who worked at I.I. and I.U. called it a cult. Not everyone, but way more than a few, and several who were longtime Wilber associates, who stay on anyway because there may be career opportunities. Did either of you work for I.I./I.U., Perez, Ebuddha? I got plenty of private email from I.I. insiders, thanking me for talking openly about the cultic, groupthink dysfunction of the organization. Look, no one says it is Hale-Bopp; there are innumerable ways of being a cult. This cult was crack for the spiritually inclined, postmodernism-infected creative class. I have no interest in revisiting for any length of time all that stuff, all the reasons that I.I./I.U. is/was a joke. But, christ, this lame checklist and your opinions from outside the stadium hardly qualify as informed perspective on the actual game.
md
And here’s a link to the same discussion going on at the Zaadz I-I pod:
Re: Update on Integral Institute as a “cult”, or cult-like
by coolmel on Fri 11 May 2007 06:05 PM PDT | Profile | Permanent Link
nevermind. i posted it.
http://pods.zaadz.com/ii/discussions/view/141111
Hardly a reasoned critique, Edward. “It’s a cult because I.I. and I.U. people said it was…”
Yeah, I’m convinced now.
There is a large step from a dysfunctional organization to being an actual cult. Checklists like this act as a bit of a reality check on people that can’t understand the difference.
My only qualification to comment on this thread is that I’ve taken one Integral WET experience weekend in Miami last October.
I’m not sure that there is anything wrong with I-I being a cult. There would be a problem if it’s a bad cult. Didn’t someone say that all truth is initially cultic
?
My main problem with I-I and the crowd that I met in Miami is that it isn’t very academically inclined. Since I’m an academic, I find the lack of high-quality discussions regarding AQAL, 1st tier/2nd tier etc. very frustrating. I think Wilber gets away with too much junk because there are no academics interested in challenging him.
Still the workshops are a helluva lot of fun and a great way to meet like-minded (spiritually inclined) people. So, I’m not too bothered by the cult-like atmosphere surrounding I-I. I’ll continue to enjoy the workshops, meet some great people and keep a safe distance.
Anand
Hi Anand,
Yes, you’ve hit the nail on the head. I-I is pseudo-academic. Wilber knows his ideas will be put through the wringer if they are formally introduced to the academy. That’s exactly why he set up his own academy. His followers are non-academics easily impressed by his intellectual persona. I-I has always been borderline New Age. Some folks in the New Age movement and hovering on the periphery were attracted to Wilber because they thought it gave their inclination intellectual legitimacy and gravitas.
Al,
I have yet to give any opinion on the issue; I just introdcued the topic. Apparently you are ascribing Matthew’s words to mine when I clearly cited to whom the comments belong. Perhaps you should consult with your I-I shadow coach before you project and put your foot into your mouth again?
edward,
the purpose of Open Integral is still served, if there is theory discussed outside of I-I proper. For example, a place where the mystical is taken more seriously, or a place where the sources are followed to what they really say, rather than quite possibly incorrect generalizations. Which Ken has a habit of doing.
I just thought it would be worthwhilee revisiting.
Thanks for referencing it!
Yes ebuddha, the purpose of OI has gone far beyond just a reaction to Ken’s Earp. And it’s doing a damned good job of it, if I am permitted some praise for myself and my colleagues here.
And yes, like MD I’m also not interested in re-hashing why I think I-I is a cult, and I do much more than you do. There’s too much other work to be done here and like Anand says (I paraphrase, as usual): unless I-I starts killing people, stealing their money or brainwashing them (well ok, they do that) then they are relatively harmless as cults go. But unlike Anand I’m also not going to buy their products and support them financially. And if Al thinks I’m skirting a reasoned debate on the issue I can live with that. I just don’t care.
I’m not an I-I member but it good to see that you engage in personal attack with those that disagree with you. It speaks volumes to your character (or lack thereof).
Skirted reasoned debate? You have not even attempted it.
I don’t care really. I’ve read some of Ken’s books and like elements of it but I’m a Buddhist practitioner, not an I-I guy.
I read this blog for another perspective but I expected one with some honesty and depth. I’m not going to bother anymore. Good luck with your bully pulpit. I’m sure talking with people who agree with you only will be very fulfilling.
Wow, what’s eating him?
Ok I acknowledge that discussion and debate with those of different views to oneself can be confronting, but it always teaches me a lot. And whilst my own mental and spiritual perspective, belief-system, and approach differs from the more detailed academic approach of this forum, I have learned a lot from taking part here. And my experience has been the exact opposite of Al’s; I have been impressed by the degree of honesty and depth I have found here.
Reply to Ray Harris: “That’s exactly why he [Ken Wilber] set up his own academy. His followers are non-academics easily impressed by his intellectual persona.”
Which is a real pity. Ken Wilber could so easily have been the American counterpart of David Chalmers and Daniel Stoljar (at ANU, Canberra). He has the intellectual chops to do it. And with the US being much more receptive to religion than any other western country, he could have been a postmodern Huston Smith. Think David Ray Griffin but with a Vedanta/Buddhist twist.
Reply to Ed Berge: “I’m also not going to buy their [I-I's] products and support them financially.” The workshop I attended was a good experience as long as you ignore AQAL and Stuart Davis. I liked Terry Patten who ran the workshop since he was jargon free for the most part.
“1, The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.
“Well, certainly SOME people feel this way about Ken Wilber. But in my estimation, not many. Since this a on/off judgment call, I’m going with “noâ€Â.â€Â
Did you read some of the comments Wilber’s followers made during the Earp episode? I would say a resounding “yesâ€Â.
“2. Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.
“This one isn’t even close – definite “noâ€Â.
Again, I strongly disagree. If you followed even a little bit of the “dialogue†between Wilber and his critics, I don’t know how you could possibly come to the conclusion that dissent is not discouraged. OK, so members are not physically threatened if they step out of line. But they are clearly humiliated. Look at the invective directed against Meyerhoff, or even Frank. If a member came to their strong defense, do you doubt that he/she would be spared such invective?
“9. The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt in order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.
You have a little bit of this, in the 1st tier/2nd tier distinction, but not enough for a “yesâ€Â. No on the checklist.â€Â
Again, I got a very different impression from the Earp episode. What is the whole tier 2 vs. tier 1 thing if not peer pressure?
“12. The group is preoccupied with making money.
“Again, most groups are preoccupied with making enough money to function. In terms of an ‘extraordinary’ desire to make money -ponzi schemes or multi-level marketing, working on your friends – that would be a “noâ€Â.
I would give this half a yes. They are sufficiently interested in money to bend or distort the academic truth. For example, Wilber trashes evolutionary theory, in large part I think to suck up to the major element of the population that doesn’t believe in evolution. He endorses or at least does not seriously criticize many trendy but poorly supported New Age ideas for the same reason. I believe he does this to appeal to a low common denominator, and that in turn is done to increase contributions.
In conclusion, I would give I-I 7.5 out of 15. Do I think this is evidence of strong cultish behavior? No, there are organizations out there that are far more extreme examples of cults. I would say I-I is only moderately so. But the point is, an organization that is supposedly built around a rigorous scientific, philosophical and spiritual framework should be avoiding cultish behavior like the plague.
Btw, Geoffrey Falk carried out a similar analysis and came to the conclusion (not suprising if you are familiar with his work) that I-I exhibited strong cultish behavior.
Andy,
I think it’s going to matter how close you are to the work. Certainly, having seen enough of cults, the dynamic is different, in my opinion, with I-I. Of course, there is the “outside” and the “inside” world. The only time I get worried, is when the the distinction between “those of US who are 2nd tier”, versus those who are “outside” and 1st tier.
Because those lines aren’t possible to draw, as far as I can see.
2. Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.
I agree with Andy here. No, not punished, but certainly discouraged! I was frankly astonished by Wilber’s stamping down on discussion re his Intelligent Design / anti-Darwinist claims (see my page on this)
Ebuddha said:
I think it’s going to matter how close you are to the work. Certainly, having seen enough of cults, the dynamic is different, in my opinion, with I-I.
This is an interesting point, and it pertains to the whole phenomenonon of human belief. Quite simply, any religion, ideology, cult, sect, philosophy, whatever, will seem “different” – i.e. it will seem to avoid the errors of the others – to the believer.
If you are a postmodernist, you will naturally see pomo as avoiding the errors of other philosophies, and be able to back up your claims with texts, powerful arguments etc. If you are an Aurobindonian, and your life is dedicated to the Integral Yoga and teachings of Sri Aurobindo and The Mother, you will naturally see this as the truest path, and quote inspiring texts etc. If you are a Wilberian, then for you AQAL is the most integral philosophy, and you will be able to persuasively argue that it is not a cult. And this will be true, because foryou it isn’t a cult! It’s an authentical intellectual and spiritual teaching. For you. And if you are a Theravadan or Madhyamilka or Yogacharin or Vajrayanist or Chan/Zen Buddhist, well, in each case you will have the most persuasive arguments, the most convincing logic, and you will thus show that your own school of Buddhism is acknowledged as superior to the others (there is often this sort of hierarchical interpretation, especially in Tantric Buddhism, of preliminary and more perfect texts; it’s a lot like Wilber, or like Adi Da with his seven stages of life classification). I could go on and on, mention every religion and philosophy and ideology and worldview known to man. It will always be the same.
For me, Integral Yoga is my path of orientation, unless I come across a teaching that to me is more complete (for others here, pomo, or nagarjuna, or wilber, are already more complete, from their mental perspective. But i can only speak from my mental perspectrive, and from my gnosis). So my books and my comments will reflect my onw biased point of view. But I absolutely avoid taking the words of Sri Aurobindo and The Mother as literalist dogma. And I acknowledge that there are other teachers just as sublime, Ramana Maharshi for example. And others just as insightful, such as the little known Max Theon.
So, ultimately, any religion, philosophy, ideology, methodology, pop cultural fad, whatever, can be defined as a “cult”. Because whatever mental thoughtform one adapts, one limits oneself, by excluding other thoughtforms (so if you adopt pomo or wilberism you exclude metaphysics and vice-versa). This is the way the mind works. And why all these conversations are ultimately futile.
But, having said that, I’ll now turn around and look at things from the relative, mental point of view. From the perspective of the external material physical consciousness, this checklist is useful. And with my own biased pov, from what i have read, I would consider I-I is a small “c” cult and would agree with Andy’s assessment here, less critical than Falk but more critical than ebuddha.
Now, rather than just Wilber-bash, I should apply this methodology to my own chosen “tradition”. How does Integral Yoga compare on this scale. Honestly.
Here is my assessment:
1) this is highly problematic, because – putting aside the fact that the level of zealousness etc is not defined and highly subjective – as I have explained, adherence to any religion and ideology, even the most harmless or wholesome one, requires a strong mental commitment. If you don’t have that, why believe what you believe at all? That’s how the mind works. So I would answer this as yes in every single philosophy and ideology and religion and spiritual teaching in the history of humanity. Through the act of being human, and believing something
2) absolutely not (this attitude is against everything IY, or any other authentic spiritual practice, stands for)
3) I don’t consider meditation negative. And not all Integral Yogis meditate. For the rest, absolutely not
4) There is no Integral Yoga “leadership”.
5) inasmuch as the goal of integral yoga is the divinisation of matter, yes.
6) see (2)
7) see (4)
9) see (4)
10) taking up any spiritual path may mean a total change in behaviour, i.e. if previously personal goals were to make as much money as possible at the expense of others, well, that would change. But other than that, no. It is worth pointing out here, if someone enters a monastery or ashram and renounces one’s previous life, has little contact with family and former friends etc, is that a cult? Or a religion? Or a spiritual life choice?
11) If anything IY is the opposite. That’s why I would prefer to see more outreach and contact
12) see (2)
13) For IY no. But how much individual practice one does is upto oneself. This is the same with any spiritual path. But for ashrams, monasteries, or living in a spiritual community in general (not IY) see (10)
14) see (13)
!5) see (13)
Total score, 2 out of 15.
In the case of even the most agnostic and irreligious person, the score could never be less than 1 out of 15.
In the case of living a renunciate but wholesome contemplative life, in an authentic spiritual tradition, the score may be as high as 5 out of 15, higher than ebuddha’s rating of I-I, but less than Andy’s rating. So it may well be that I-I is no more cultic then any established religious sect. All of which indicates how misleading it can be to apply these sort of standards outside the very specific context they were developed for; in this case, to determine the degree of abusiveness and personality control in a dysfunctional group led by an egotistic or delusional leader. Or for that matter, any evangelical/charismatic Christian group would score upto 10 or 11 out of 15 (the “nos” being the ones related to things like cutting family ties, since these groups are pro-family; or if it is part of a hierarchical church, submission to higher authorities). So it is significant that established religions are not condemned,whereas New Age groups like Wilber/I-I (who imho is very much new age, despite his pseudo-academic approach) are.
Many years ago, I had the privilege of staying with some “moonies” (Unification Church) people, and I found them the nicest people. Sure, they were (and would still be) narrow minded, but so is any mainstream believer. It all goes back to this whole question of whether or not a new religious movement is accepted by the mainstream or not.
Okay, that’s more than enough rambling from me!
As long as Ken Wilber does not start his own sangha or ashram I don’t think the negative sides of I-I will become very destructive in the same quantity as for instance with his former master Da.
I do think though that Ken Wilber has a problematic view on his role as a teacher of Guru. Let’s look at his introduction to one of his friend Andrew Cohen’s books where he praises the concept of the teacher who is rude to his students:
But if you want Enlightenment, if you want to wake up, if you want to get fried in the fire of passionate Infinity, then, I promise you: find yourself a Rude Boy or a Nasty Girl, the ones who make you uncomfortable in their presence, who scare you witless, who will turn on you in a second and hold you up for ridicule, who will make you wish you were never born, who will offer you not sweet comfort but abject terror, not saccharin solace but scorching angst, for then, just then, you might very well be on the path to your own Original Face.
http://www.livingenlightenment.com/foreword.asp
I wonder what he would write for two of the famous exponents of Hinduism and Buddhism, Ramana Maharshi and the Dalai Lama, both not very aggressive persons (to use an understatement)? And certainly Ramana has been a very succesful teacher!
Now I do acknowledge that perhaps some teachers can use terror in such a way that they produce results with students. But I think they are very very rare in the sense that it is extremely difficult to see when and how to use terror. Most terror creates (ego)defenses going up instead of down, less awareness instead of more, hurt instead of love or strength, dependancy instead of autonomy, confusion instead of clarity, more mind instead of less etc.. The only teacher I know that sometimes used a minor form of terror and produced big results was Nisargadatta.
Most teachers that think they can use terror constructively in my view are just kidding themselves and are thus abusive teachers. Some of them are just rationalizing their aggression or shadow coming out in this way. Andrew Cohen obviously falls in this category, so do a lot of other so called abusive teachers.
It seems from his introduction that Ken Wilber really thinks most rude teachers have the capability to use this behaviour constructively, perhaps including himself. If he does and he keeps on teaching himself more abusive behaviour may be expected to come.
[In a recent workshop on cultural differences, an educated Indian said that he'd been brought up to believe that Western women are ‘free', available. No doubt this is reinforced by what is seen on Western television, but is there anything within Auroville culture which might support such a perception? Thulasi recalls an incident. Recently her partner, Wim, passed away. “When I told a Tamil lady who knew Wim what had happened she said, very gently, ‘Don't have a friendship with another man.' She seemed to think that the trend in Auroville was for people to move on, to always find someone else, and she didn't want me to be disloyal.â€Â
Suryagandhi confirms that there's a perception in the village that Western Aurovilians change partners frequently. “This gives Auroville a bad reputation, certainly not a spiritual one. Then there's the situation at the beach. People come from all over at weekends to look at the Western women lying on the Auroville beach. The village elders ask, ‘Why do they do this? Why can't they cover themselves up a little?'â€Â
“When I hear this I get so angry with Tamil culture,†says Priya, “because Tamil men have no problem in going to see movies which are very suggestive and where the woman is dancing semi-naked. There's a double-standard here, and it's not fair to put the blame on Westerners.â€Â]
http://www.auroville.org/journals&media/avtoday/April_07/differences.htm
Tulsar,
It would have been good if this quote was put into context. I have no idea why you posted this excerpt.