INTEGRAL WORLD: EXPLORING THEORIES OF EVERYTHING
An independent forum for a critical discussion of the integral philosophy of Ken Wilber



powered by TinyLetter
Today is:
Publication dates of essays (month/year) can be found under "Essays".
Martin Erdmann is a German writer, poet, retired lecturer of Heidelberg University. He completed studies of English, French, and of legal science, both at the University of Heidelberg. He wrote several books in German focusing on the illusion of the I or Ego. As a cofounder of the German Spiritual Emergence Network (S. E. N) he provided counseling to people undergoing spiritual crises. For several years now he has conducted seminars on Advaita-Vedanta. (email: martin@satsa.de Homepage: www.satsa.de)

See also: The Real Cause of Cohen's Dilemma: Part I

The Real Cause of
Andrew Cohen's Dilemma

Part II: Ken Wilber's Ego-Theory
Revealed as a True Breeding Ground
of Self-Destruction

Martin Erdmann

Abstract: There is only the true Subject or Self. The Ego is the illusory Subject, which as such does not exist. It is merely a state of Self-Contraction suffered by the true Subject. The Andrewite, in following Ken Wilber's Ego-Theory as presented in Cohen's living enlightenment, sees the Ego as a Separate Self, which is an inimical object to be demolished. So by trying to annihilate the Ego the Andrewite destroys himself as the true Subject, which he is. Thus Wilber's Ego-Theory, which is purportedly leading to Self-Liberation, is in reality a true breeding ground of Self-Destruction.

Ken Wilber's disparate ego-theories

Part I of this article tried to show how Andrew Cohen's misguided spiritual practice found its support in Ken Wilber's faulty ego theory as presented in his forword in Cohen's Living Enlightenment. There are other ego-theories born from Wilber's imagination, which point in a different direction. In Sex, Ecology, Spirituality, for example, Wilber speaks of a “divine egoism” (1995: 463), which means an ego to be enhanced, to be worshipped. So we have an ego here, which stands in stark contrast to the ego of Living Enlightenment, which is to be annihilated. In Wilber's writing we find quite a few ego-theories, which are incompatible with each other. A brief overview of Wilber's inconsistent classifications of ego will be given in Part III of this article.

What we are concerned with here, is Wilber's ego-theory as illustrated in his forword in Cohen's Living Enlightenment, which has been embraced by Cohen in his spiritual practice. This is the major subject of this article. It is a practice, which, so we have seen in Part I, has been faithfully endorsed by our Andrewites, who in their quest of enlightenment want to see their egos fried and burnt.

How André broke from Andrew's paralyzing control

Enlightenment Blues

Let us look into Cohen's spiritual enterprise more concretely now, in the context of Enlightenment Blues, a work composed by Dr. André van der Braak, who writes: “His teaching is in my blood, in my very cells. Yes, now I feel humiliated, trampled, mistreated – but isn't that the voice of my whining ego (italics added by author), feeling sorry for itself; the voice of the enemy that must be strangled?” (2003: 86)

“The emphasis on surrender, the initial happiness of merging into something bigger, the dogmatism, the rules and regulations, the suppression of doubts” (2003: 215) first lead him to firmly believe in Andrew Cohen and his teaching.

“We were all surrendering to him”, he writes, “that's what is supposed to happen between a spiritual teacher and a student. How else can the ego be overcome?” (2003: 200), how else can absolute freedom, can perfect enlightenment be achieved.

That is what André van der Braak believed in the beginning of his discipleship. Then André, who held a leading position in Andrew's Sangha, observed more closely the methods applied by Andrew, to see how they affected him as an individual, how they affected the other disciples in the community. He began to suspect that this teaching did not lead to a liberation from enslavement, from social patterns and conditioning as promised by Andrew. He had a feeling that the contrary was the case, that the disciples who surrendered to Andrew had much rather their individuality, their freedom curtailed, undermined.

Then André has these scruples rising in his mind on account of his apprehension, his mistrust of the way Andrew treated his disciples. “I try desperately to push my doubts away”, André writes. “I try my best to be a leader, to put the squeeze on others even more fanatically. I see myself become cold and harsh, inhuman… To stay on Andrew's good side I'll have to violate myself and others more and more. What does this have to do with freedom?” (2003: 176), he asks himself now. Then more serious apprehensions rise in his mind, while he begins to see more clearly the unhealthy patterns, the unsound social conditioning underlying a teaching which was supposed to liberate from all inbred social control.

“Things are looking more and more like a madhouse. My doubts get stronger”, he writes. “Is this sanity? The pressure on both Marianne”, who is his girl-friend, “and me increases week by week. I am not allowed to speak with Marianne about it. I am being called a selfish jerk, all my attempts to show good intentions are dismissed as insincere.” (2003: 176)

During one of his talks, writes André van der Braak, “Andrew gives an example of the viciousness of the ego by talking about another student of his that left him a few days before, a rich American woman. He calls her a narcissist and speaks about how she once gave him two million dollars for his Foxhollow center, but was unwilling to give up her ego.” (2003: 210) The two million dollars she gave are not enough. Andrew wants more. For this the woman's ego has to be annihilated, so that for herself nothing remains. Then it will all be Andrew's to be fervently used in this evolutionary enlightenment, which he so jubilantly proclaims.

André is getting highly suspicious now of Andrew's evolutionary, the former revolutionary, enlightenment. He begins to realize that surrendering to Andrew does not lead to the sincerity, the truthfulness which Andrew's teaching was to unfold in the aspirant's soul. “I feel it became second nature for me to lie about what I was thinking and feeling, to myself and to others, when it didn't fit with Andrew's teachings”. (2003: 208) André finally recognizes that in yielding to Andrew's will and power he becomes estranged, alienated from his own free will and power.

“We can only realize this mystery” of enlightenment, he now clearly sees, “by truly becoming who we already are and always have been, and this means embracing our individuality, not sacrificing it… I see it as an openness to all that exists, a willingness to let ourselves stand naked before life, allowing ourselves to be affected and overwhelmed. At the same time this openness to life must include our individuality, without needing to kill or suppress any part of it.” (2003: 226/227)

So André, after eleven years of discipleship, breaks from Andrew and his Sangha to turn to a life of a newly found freedom.

“The writing of this book”, so he concludes, “has been a sobering process of soul-searching, of delving into some moments which were extremely painful, of redefining and understanding not only these eleven years, but also my basic philosophy of life, my ideals. I don't feel personally angry any more with Andrew and his community. Although I see Andrew's shortcomings more clearly and soberly, his adolescent all-or nothing mentality, his need for affirmation and power, I feel no need to go on a crusade against him.” (2003: 225)

André's book, so I gather, has been enough of a crusade already, of an inner struggle which lead to André's own liberation from the enslavement of Andrew's Sangha. So he awakened from his dream, to look for freedom not in an alienated guru-disciple relationship, but in the core of his own being where true freedom and individuality lie.

With all the insight into Andrew's misguided spiritual practice André did not see, however, the core of Andrew's ill-conceived teaching.

With all the insight into Andrew's misguided spiritual practice André did not see, however, the core of Andrew's ill-conceived teaching. He continues to think of the ego as an “enemy that must be strangled” (2003: 86) Also after leaving Andrew and his Sangha he believes in a spiritual practice intent on having an inimical ego exterminated for true enlightenment to occur, as proclaimed by Ken Wilber. Only Andrew's “talk about killing the ego to find freedom sounds fundamentalist” (2003: 210) to André. Andrew, so he believes now, should not so strictly adhere to his teaching, to be more forgiving and patient. André left Andrew not because the latter considered the ego to be an enemy to be crushed. He left him for not being sympathetic enough in pursuit of his lofty enterprise.

Andrew Cohen had his spiritual practice built on Wilber's spiritual teaching, which considers the ego, the separate self, to be an enemy standing in the way of blissful enlightenment. “That demands”, says Wilber, “a brutal, shocking death: a literal death of your separate self”, which can only be executed by a “Rude Boy” like Andrew, “who acts with uncompromising integrity that shows compassion to your real Self and a very big stick to your ego”, which Wilber, so we heard in Part I, equated with the “huge stick” employed by the “great Zen masters”. So Wilber applauds Andrew for using this big stick to whack the ego mercilessly, to hit, slap the ego, until it has been firmly crushed, until nothing of the ego remains. This is the lofty goal pursued by Andrew now, who fatefully followed Ken Wilber in his egosteps.

The ego for Wilber is the separate self, divorced from the true Self, which you truly are. The separate self must be exterminated, for ”only on the other side of egoic slaughter lies the Good and the True and the Beautiful,” which is the true Self, as seen by Wilber.

“Teachers have two choices in the face of the onslaught of the separate selves… they can play to the audience, or they can blow the entire building up”, says Wilber. “Andrew Cohen is a Rude Boy”, and “Rude boys are on your case in the worst way… they will roast your ass in a screaming second and fry your ego before you knew what hit it.” For “your true glory lies… where your separate self has been roasted and replaced by infinite resplendent.”

In Living Enlightenment Wilber considers the ego, the separate self, to be an obstructing object, which must be fried, slaughtered, demolished for the true Self to light up. The idea of a separate self, seen as a real object, has also been embraced by Wilber in The Spectrum of Consciousness, as will be shown in the following chapter.

Wiber's ill-conceived Ego Theory as the Deeper Cause of the Dilemma

Wilber sees my I as an object because he confounds a mere linguistic convention with the reality of life.

In The Spectrum of Consciousness (1999: 308) Ken Wilber writes (italics added):

“This separate and subjective 'self'…is obviously an illusion. It is an illusion because, although I imagine it to be the subject which sees, knows, and feels the universe, it is in fact simply another object of perception. That is to say, this 'separate self' is actually something which I can see, know, or at least be aware of, for this I betray all the time by saying such things as, “I am aware of myself,” or “I know who I am,” or “Of course I am aware of myself reading this book.” Inescapably I feel that I can look at myself, and yet anything at which l look must be an object of perception (italics by Wilber): Thus my supposedly "subjective self" is not a true subject at all, it is a pseudo-subject, which, in actuality, is just another object! It is something which I can perceive and therefore it cannot be the real Perceiver!
As for the real Perceiver, the true Self, the Absolute Self, the Absolute Subjectivity – it cannot be seen because it is doing the seeing; it cannot he known for it is the Knower. My true Self can no more see itself as an object than fire can burn itself or a knife can cut itself.”

In Ken Wilber's classification we have the true Self, the Absolute Self, the Absolute Subjectivity, which is the true Subject. Then we have the separate Self, the subjective Self, which is not the true Subject. It is “an illusion”, thus an illusory Subject.

The illusory Subject is seen, perceived, as an object. The true Subject is not seen as an object. ”It cannot be seen” at all, “because it is doing the seeing”, says Ken Wilber.

Let us turn to the illusory Subject first. It is, in my own view now, the true Subject, which became entrapped in a state of illusion, which is created this way. Let us assume someone, whom you highly respect, walks up to you and says: “You are intelligent.” In a process, which happens unconsciously, thus unnoticed, you turn the statement into: “I am intelligent.” Now you feel great. The next day the same person walks up to you and says: “You are stupid.” This statement you turn into: “I am stupid.” Now you feel miserable. You do not like that, because quite naturally you want to feel good.

Now you can only feel good, when you are accepted, respected by other people you come in contact with. Thus in your conduct you adjust yourself to what is considered a socially accepted, a respected behavior. Big Brother watches you, Big Brother here being your fellow-men, the society at large you live in. Thus society watches over you to tell you what to do and what not to do.

As the illusory Subject you say: I am bright, I am dull, I am appreciated, I am detested. As the true Subject you do not turn the you, which you are for the other person, into I. Neither are you identified with any of these human qualities. You do not say: I am bright, I am stupid. You just say: I am.

When the true Subject identifies with human qualities, social attributes, it falls under the control, restriction of society. Thus the Subject's actions can no longer freely flow from within. They find themselves restricted, constrained by the social norms the Subject is identified with. So the true Subject becomes entrapped in a state of self-contraction. It remains the true Subject, which It is. What changes is the state It is in.

I always see myself. As the illusory Subject, identified with human attributes, I see myself as what I am not. As the true Subject I see myself as what I am. Here it is the Subject seeing the Subject, which is the Absolute, which is Emptiness. So It is Emptiness seeing Emptiness. It is a seeing, which sees itself.

This is an intuition which revealed itself to the German idealists, whom Wilber greatly leans on. I do not have the English translation on my book-shelves. So I will quote from the German text, of which I will give an abbreviated translation only. The longer German quote will be given in the Appendix at the end of this essay.

Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling, one of the German idealists, speaks of “a seeing, which sees itself”. Another idealist, who is Johann Gottlieb Fichte, calls it “an eye, which sees itself”, Fichte's eye being a metaphor for Schelling's seeing.

For Wilber the true Subject “cannot be seen because it is doing the seeing,” It “can no more see itself as an object than fire can burn itself or a knife can cut itself.” It cannot see itself as an object, because It is the Subject; but It can see itself as the subject, which is a seeing that sees itself.

A knife cannot cut itself, but I can see myself. The nature of a knife, of fire, which is an object, does not tell me anything about the essence of myself, which is a true Subject. Wilber, however, wants to derive the nature of the true Subject from the nature of an object, like a cutting knife, a burning fire.

Let us to turn to the illusory Subject now, which for Wilber is “in fact simply another object of perception… this”, so Wilber, “I betray all the time by saying such things as, 'I am aware of myself', or “I know who I am”.

Rightly considered an object of perception is the other person only, whom I do not call I, whom I call you instead. In the sentences given by Wilber there is no you. There is only “I” meaning “I”, and “myself” meaning “I”. This shows that the illusory Subject is not an object. It is the Subject. It is, as we have seen, the true Subject, which has become enclosed in a state of self-contraction.

In the second paragraph cited above Wilber continues to write: “For some odd reason, I have identified my real Self with some peculiar complex of objects that I can look at, and this complex of objects I then mistake for my 'subjective self.'“ He then states: “A careful look will inescapably demonstrate this “subjective self, “this pseudo-subject to be nothing but one among other objects of perception.”

A person does not identify with an object, like a table or a knife, unless he or she is schizophrenic. The true Subject identifies with thoughts, not with thoughts like atmosphere, circumference, gravity. It identifies with a particular kind of thoughts only. These are thoughts, which describe human qualities like being trustworthy, mischievous, arrogant. Even if It did identify with an object, It would not become an object. When you identify with the hero of a movie, you do not become the hero. You identify with the hero, which is a different story. So there is no way for the illusory Subject or I to become an object, as Wilber tries to make us believe.

We do not become an object and we do not see ourselves. as an object. What we see, is ourselves. As long as we hold on to the illusory I, or Subject we see ourselves as what we are not. When the true I or Subject lights up, we see ourselves as what we truly are. It makes no difference how we see or perceive ourselves, we always see ourselves.

No matter whether I see myself as what I am or as what I am not, I always see myself. So for myself I am not an object, as Wilber believes.

A knife cannot cut itself, a hand cannot grasp itself, a leg cannot walk itself. What we call I, can see itself. This shows what I call I is not an it, is not an object. If my I were an object, I would not be able to see myself. I would see an object, which is not myself. I can see myself, however. So, what is called I, cannot be an object.

I asked myself how in the world can someone like Ken Wilber derive the nature of the Subject from the nature of a fire or a knife. Now I read in "Is Ken Wilber a guru?" by Jos Groot that “Wilber completed in three months time the manuscript of The Spectrum of Consciousness. 'I work fast', says Wilber, 'in a kind of trance, in which I process the information at a terrible high speed'". So I understand, Wilber wrote this "at a terrible high speed”. It appears to me that he also wrote at a high speed The Marriage of Sense and Soul, which is basically a jockeying of definitions, as I tried to show in my article "You Cannot Have Your Transcendental Cake and Eat It".

Now a major mistake Wilber made was to see his separate I or self as an object, because he confounded a mere linguistic convention with the reality of life. The illusory I or Subject does not exist in real life. I write these words, not the I writes these lines. The reader of this article will say to himself: I read these lines. He will not say: |The I reads these lines. Normally we do not speak of the I. We say: I do this, and I do that. In this article we speak of the I, however, and we do so, because we are engaged in something we are normally not concerned with.

We have made what is called I an object of our investigation. For this, what in everyday speech is called I, has to turn to the I, the Subject, to be properly articulated in our inquiry. What we call I, has to be made an object of language to be rightly examined. For this, what is called I, must be rephrased as the I, as the Subject. The I, the (separate) Subject has no existence in real life. It exists as a mere linguistic convention only. When you speak of the I you have not become an object which you perceive. I do not see the I or self walking down the road. Hallo, my dear old I, how are you, haven't seen you in long time. I am not here and my I over there. There is only, what we in everyday language call I. Wilber confounds a linguistic convention with the reality of life. So he sees the I as a separate self, as an object divorced from the Subject, which is the true I or Self.

How the Andrewites, intent on demolishing an inimical ego, destroy themselves

What applies to the I holds true for the Ego, which is the illusory I, Wilber's separate self. Like the I, which does not exist in real life, the Ego does not have any real existence. When I speak of my Ego, there is no Ego standing in front of me. I am not standing here and my Ego over there. I am not split in two, I on the one side and the Ego on the other. There is only this one person who I am. What we call the Ego, does not have any separate existence, is not a separate self as defined by Wilber. The Ego is a state of consciousness I am in. It is myself in an egoic frame of mind. So again the Ego as such does not exist. It is a mere linguistic convention we adhere to for our exploration to be conducted.

The egoic state of consciousness I am in is not something divorced from myself, not something which is over there while I am here. It is not a self separate from myself, it is not a separate self. It is the true Self in a state of self-contraction. Being in a self-contracted, that is an egoic state of mind, It remains the true I or Self, which It is. This means, when the Andrewite sets out to demolish the Ego, what he really destroys, is himself, as the unique individual he is. The Andrewite does so, because he or she imbibed the ego theory born from Wilber's imagination. Wilber conveyed his theory to Andrew Cohen in the popular dialogues, for example, portrayed in the now defunct EnlightenNext magazine, which succeeded “Andrew's magazine What is Enlightenment?”.

“This”, states Wilber in his forword in Living Enlightenment, “is the only magazine I know that is deeply, truly, outrageously Rude… slaughtering the sacred cows… to shatter egoic complacency…” Here we have Wilber's theory of the ego again, portrayed as a sacred cow now that must be slaughtered. Wilber conveyed his idea of an inimical ego to Andrew Cohen, who in due course passed it on to his disciples. So we see our Andrewites truly convinced they must demolish the obstructing ego to attain to an enlightened state of perfect freedom. In reality they undermine, suppress their own individuality to end up in a state of slavery, confined together in a dungeon, indulging in dreams of an evolutionary enlightenment. They are actually living in an evolutionary endarkenment, to employ Frank Visser's term in his article "Evolutionary Endarkenment: Review of Andrew Ccohen's "Evolutionary Enlightenment"

The blows delivered by Andrew represent an assault causing bodily harm. They do not represent a criminal offense though, as ex-followers and detractors insinuated. After all they are carried out with the consent of the victims concerned. Actually our Andrewites are asking for the slapping and punching delivered by Andrew and the higher ranks of Andrewites. Please hit me, hit me real hard, for the obstructing ego to be annihilated, for the way to be cleared that leads to perfect enlightenment. This is what the Andrewites are asking for, because they see Andrew as the only connection to the Absolute. No one comes to the Absolute except through Andrew, so they believe, in an enlightenment they wish to have for themselves.

So the faithful Andrewite is grateful to Andrew for withholding his passport, for retaining his credit card and car keys so that he will not be tempted to leave the community premises, as depicted in No 40 of Hal Blacker's The "A" List of Andrew Cohen: A Catalog of Trauma and Abuse. This way the Andrewite finds himself protected from the hellish life outside the Sangha doors, with all hope for enlightenment forsaken for all time to come.

The disciples of Andrew are humiliating themselves, in an endeavor, which finds itself wholeheartedly supported by former guru Cohen. The more advanced disciples are no longer in need of Andrew's humiliating support. They mortify themselves on their own account.

André van der Braak, who is on his way to Andrew´s house, writes: “Looking out at the road I am reminded of Matt, an English student, who last month prostrated the entire way up the road to Andrew' s house in order to convince Andrew that he was serious in wanting to take on his ego.” (2003: 65) Matt was no longer in need of Andrew's Zen stick, of his helping blows. As an advanced student he crippled himself psychologically by lying on his front face downwards, then in worship to Andrew moving slowly with the body to the ground all the way up to Andrew's house.

A disciple more highly advanced than Matt was ready to mutilate himself physically even. “Some years ago at Foxhollow”, so we hear, “a student named Jeff, a very good writer, was having a great deal of trouble with a writing project he had been assigned to do. He was supposed to write an introduction to a book Andrew was publishing, but he was having no success. Feeling terrible guilt about this, he wrote in a desperate letter to Andrew, 'If I don't come through, I will cut my finger off.' Andrew seemed to like this idea…” (Integral Abuse: Andrew Cohen and the Culture of Evolutionary Enlightenment)

“Andre van der Braak”, reports Geoffrey Falk, “gives the unsettling example of a committed student reportedly… willing 'rather to be burned alive than betray Andrew.'” (Sometimes I Feel Like a God (Andrew Cohen), July 2013)

Here we have the example of a student, who has truly internalized the ego theory of Wilber & Cohen. So he is ready to burn himself, to have the obstructing ego go up in flames, with the flames leaping up into heavenly enlightenment. “If you can stand the heat, you will indeed come to realize that your true glory lies where you cease to exist”, says Wilber, “where your separate self has been roasted and replaced by infinite resplendent – a radical Release.”

There is no self separate from what you are. Wilber's illusory, separate self or ego is the true Self, which has suffered a state of self-contraction. So the Andrewite intent on burning his ego is ready to burn himself in Wilber's ill-conceived ego theory carried to its logical conclusion. Thus the “brutal shocking death”, the “literal death of your separate self”, which Wilber proclaims, becomes the literal physical death of the individual, who in trying to annihilate the ego is ready to kill himself.

Outlook

As has been stated at the beginning of this Part II, Wilber' s ego-theory in Living Enlightenment is not the only ego-theory embraced by Ken Wilber. There are different classifications of an ego, with changing notions of an ego to be found in Wilber's oeuvre. In his Journals, running under the title of One Taste, Ken Wilber elaborates on the “great yogis, saints, and sages – from Moses to Christ to Padmasambhava”, who “rattled the world on its own terms”, who “shook the world to its very foundations… These great movers and shakers were not small egos; they were, in the very best sense of the term, big egos” (1999: 298/299), says Ken Wilber.

Simply put this means: The bigger the ego the better. For the ego of Living Enlightenment it is the opposite, which means: The smaller the ego the better.

The divine ego of Sex, Ecology, Spirituality (1995: 63), mentioned at the beginning of this article, is not the big ego portrayed in One Taste. What the two types of ego have in common, though, is the fact that in both cases we find an ego, which is to be enhanced. So this ego stands in stark contrast to the ego of Living Enlightenment, which is an inimical ego that must be destroyed.

In One Taste, referring to “the notion of transcending the ego”, Wilber writes: “It does not mean to destroy the ego… to loosen that ego is to become a psychotic, not a sage.” (1999: 299/230) So what in the ego-theory of Living Enlightenment transforms you into a sage, in this ego-theory of One Taste turns you into a psychotic.

In One Taste there is still another ego-theory, with an ego now that must be dissolved. (1999: 273-276) By loosening, dissolving the ego you do not turn psychotic now, you become a liberated human being instead. You must not try to destroy the ego though. Every attempt to demolish the ego leads to a fortification of the ego. This is an insight into the nature of the ego, which does not prevent Wilber from fervently supporting "Rude Boy" Andrew in his ego-crushing design. Into this we will look more closely in Part III, only to see a truly uniting core pointing beyond Wilber's disparate ego-theories.

Appendix:

Schelling: „In der höchsten Wissenschaft schließt sich das sterbliche Auge, wo nicht mehr der Mensch sieht, sondern das ewige Sehen selber in ihm sehend geworden ist.“ (F. W. J. Schellings Sämtliche Werke, VII, S. 248)

J. G. Fichte: „Das [wahre] Ich…ist das Auge, das sich selber sieht.“ (J. G. Fichte, Sämtliche Werke I, S. 175)

References

Literature is listed by date of publication at the end, as given in this article.

Wilber, Ken, Sex, Ecology, Spiritualiy, The Spirit of Evolution, Shambhala, Boston & London, 1995

Wilber, Ken, One Taste, The Journals of Ken Wilber, Shambhala, Boston & London, 1999

Wilber, Ken, The Spectrum of Consciousness, The Collected Works of Ken Wilber, Volume One, Shamballa, Boston & London, 1999.

Cohen Andrew, Living Enlightenment, a Call for Evolution beyond Ego, Moksha Press, 2002

Van der Braak, André, Enlightenment Blues, My Years with an American Guru, Monkfish Book, Publishing Company, Rhinebeck, New York, 2003

Wilber, Ken, The Simple Feeling of Being, Embracing Your True Nature, Shamballa, Boston & London, 2004




Comment Form is loading comments...