Oneness vs one with

I am looking at Ken Wilber’s Integral Buddhism and notice that he says “one with” rather than speaking about the one.

“One with” implies someone who is one with a larger whole. That’s a bit misleading.

He could have talked about the One temporarily taking itself to be a separate being and then noticing itself as the One again.

Of course, the experience of being a separate being one with the larger whole can be a phase of this remembering, but it’s one of many phases so why focusing on that one?

Little of what KW writes seems unintentional, so I have to assume this wording is there for a reason. It could be to use words closer to people’s experience so they can connect with it more easily. Or it could be to avoid readers assuming they get it in a deeper sense when they get it at an intellectual level. Or it could be that he wants to write authentically and that “one with” is the phase he is in. I am not sure.

Note: I love KW’s integral model and maps and what he has contributed to our view on spirituality and science. I also have some minor concerns about some aspects of his writing (poor understanding of some of the theories he writes about, hangups about the “green” level, straw man arguments used against some teachers etc.) and the integral community (seems a bit arrogant, defensive, and having adopted unfortunate sides of KW’s personality).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.