This lifestyle design movement represents a kind of niche capitalism that seems to relish and thrive on it's own ability to broadcast from the viewpoint of a connoisseur. Another w(h)ine club for the bourgeois palate. Bit of a closed circle.

Radicalism requires a deep examination of total context not a rearrangement of furniture. The Titanic deck chairs and all that.

Thanks for writing this.

Ignatieff may be a stiff intellectual but at least he *can* think. And he even gives his audience credit for possibly being able to understand him. Yes some of us do know what “anticipatory hypotheticals” means. That is unlike Layton who talks as if his audience were all 5 years old.

Harper though seems to recite slogans out of the American right's playbook and simply substitute the word Canada for USA. Better get SETI on it to see if there are any signs of intelligent life there.

The situation is a lot more complicated than the popularity of the Karmapa among Western devotees. That is not even close to being a deciding factor. Western media only tends to get the most superficial aspects of the story. It's all political and has little to do with religion. These links were tweeted by Robert Thurman today.
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1101220/jsp/frontpa...
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/wikileaks-cablegate-ti...

I have also written about these complications elsewhere http://wp.me/pc8tJ-wT

The options for the Karmapa are very limited. They consists of staying in India, as a stateless refugee, with some restrictions, or going back to China and likely being tortured. Does your country want to sponsor him and piss China off? I thought not.

This is pretty much what the Theravada monks I linked to below have said also. Sexuality itself, regardless of the "subject of desire" if I may use that term, is where the question, and problem of misuse lies. This concords with what teachers of other schools, including Zen and Tibetan schools have stated. I could look up all the references but I don't have time right now.

Here's what a few more very traditional monks have to say on the subject of homosexuality.
http://www.theravada-dhamma.org/blog/?p=3429

HH the Dalai Lama does not speak for all of Buddhism or even for a significant majority. He speaks for one small sect of one particular branch of Buddhism which is very definitely in the minority, in terms of numbers of followers, of Buddhism world wide. And even in that his authority is contested and not absolute.

The article stated: "... for years, he’s been going out with one of my dear childhood friends, a real catch:"

A few questions:

1. Has his order changed the rules regarding monk's dating?
2. If not has he given up the robe?
3. Is that relevant to what he said in the video? (which I watched) Just seems like gossip.

I like him as a teacher a lot so it's not about snark. Just seeking clarification.

Upon reading your post this came to mind.

"We can learn to see the mind as a committee: the fact that unworthy impulses are proposed by members of the committee doesn’t mean that we are unworthy. We don’t have to assume responsibility for everything that gets brought to the committee floor. Our responsibility lies instead in our power to adopt or veto the motion."

Thanissaro Bhikkhu from The Road to Nirvana Is Paved with Skillful Intentions

Whatever committee we are on we will most likely not agree with everyone. And some we may unnecessarily give more credence to just because of their loudness, charisma etc. But we are the chairperson as well.

I was thinking about the article on Wilber's blog which appeared a couple of months ago promoting yet another mystical guru. He allegedly had some kind of super-sensitivity and such things.
http://www.kenwilber.com/blog/show/637

I contains such gems as:

"To put it briefly, Mr. Trivedi has an empirically demonstrated capacity to alter the atomic and molecular structure of phenomena simply through his conscious intentionality. " (psychokinesis in other words)

"According to Integral Theory, every state or type of consciousness is accompanied by a specific type of energy (gross physical energy, subtle bioenergy, causal spiritual energy), and so the emergence of this new consciousness should be accompanied by a new degree of energy along that spectrum." (Is this much different than the "ectoplasm" of the 19th century spiritualists?)

But of course we need to remember:

"This doesn't mean that this new Energy is for everyone."

So I guess those that can afford the seminars can afford the new improved energy.

I've been keeping up with your work Dr. Gelfer and recommending it to others.

Much of the Integral trip these days seems to be in providing complex self-justifying rationalizations for a classist, dysfunctional and exploitative status quo. At one time there may have been some real promise to it-the quadrants idea or the associated spiral dynamics, even though they originate in older sources and integral is just updating and amalgamating them, could have been quite useful theory if handled well. But with the nonsense about psychic powers, lifestyle management, making money, holding sway over the masses, supernatural gurus, embracing of sexual predators and so forth it's just become such a misguided New Agey stew that it's almost impossible to sift out anything useful. The reason I critique Integral is because of the inclusion of Buddhist theory in that mix as well as the endorsement of Genpo and his Big Mind circus.

On the issue of gender I have critiqued one article specifically which for many serves as a rationalization for the sexual exploitation by gurus of their followers. My critique was done in the context of a current situation going on in the Zen community, however the ramifications extend far beyond that since it is a clear articulation of what many assume to be common knowledge, and which Duff has pointed to indirectly "If you are there you are asking for whatever happens to you". The assumptions in that are staggering and include assuming that someone has the ability to foretell the future, mind read and all kinds of things. It's essentially blaming the victim.

[Sorry Duff, I don't usually go around plugging what I write on other people's blogs but this is directly related] http://enlightenmentward.wordpress.com/2010/06/02...

I mention that mainly so people are aware that there are many people involved from various backgrounds-personal development and personal growth, Buddhism, psychology, academia and Integral itself who have serious concerns about what goes on there and the influence it has far beyond that circle.

If the race issues are treated in a fashion similar to the gender issues it won't be long before someone gets out a crowbar and starts wrenching it apart.

What I have found in a lot of those rationalizations is the use of a lot of inductive reasoning and assumptions. Having a couple of women write an article decrying female victimology [which is far too complex to be given this kind of woo-woo treatment] apparently demonstrates that the victim concept itself is invalid and any woman, no matter what the circumstances who feels victimized and speaks out about that is behaving from a shadow side or has some ulterior motive other than to express their experience, is incredibly insensitive, dismissive and attempts to invalidate very valid emotional responses. And woe to any man who would dare express similar feelings as well.

It is as always about power.