Lightening The Burden
It was exhilarating to find your magazine. My first contact with WIE was "Can Science Enlighten Us?" [Spring/Summer 1997]. The romance began with a more than skeptical thumbing through, but as David Bohm and Krishnamurti flashed across the pages ["Look for Truth No Matter Where It Takes You"], the time came to sit down with a cup of tea and read a few pages. An hour later it was clear that WIE was some kind of radical phenomenon, a spiritual magazine with true depth and wisdom. By now, its well-worn pages and highlighted passages have ended up in a cozy spot amidst an assortment of Zen books. But could this solitary issue have been a fluke? Well, there'll be a next issue.

And of course, "The Modern Spiritual Predicament" [Fall/Winter 1997] consistently complemented the quality of its predecessor, the same uncompromising direction of the writers and subjects interviewed, breathing life into the essence of what enlightenment is—and is not. For most, separating the real from the unreal is a lifetime labor, and thanks to this issue of WIE, the ability to discriminate between translative and transformative [Ken Wilber, "A Spirituality that Transforms"] has lightened the burden. But with brightness comes darkening challenges. The clarity you offer is a serious spiritual catalyst on the path, intensifying, deep within, the Absolute's invitation to absorb the ego nature into the Source.
Ben Colimore
West Hollywood, California


Long Overdue
I recently saw your publication for the first time and was instantly absorbed by all of the articles and the clarity and directness of your scrutiny. Finally someone is showing some willingness to investigate and challenge some of the many and varied claims, technical approaches, goals and hard realities of spiritual exploration. Andrei Codrescu points out that we have a cultural problem with the "supermarket" of approaches available, and Georg Feuerstein expresses the "need for teachers and teachings to come together in some kind of ecumenical spirit so as to be more of a presence, especially in the media." Sam Bercholz says that Shambhala Publications has a publishing standard that they use to weed out publications that they feel may be more of "the snake oil variety."

This is exactly what I think the West is long overdue for: a council of elders, if you will—that perhaps could start as small as the mission statement of your magazine—that would begin to analyze, categorize, audit and to some degree accredit (like Consumer Reports) the entire spectrum of spiritual paths and practices, so that this most worthy of endeavors would be grounded in some responsible public standard, and so that seekers would have a benchmark by which to make informed choices. Isn't it time some concerted effort was made to reduce (or at least provide a roadmap through) the "noise" and confusion and tabloid nature of today's spiritual marketing?
James Chicoine
Birmingham, Alabama


Media Ego
Upon completing my first issue of What Is Enlightenment? I was struck by several thoughts. Although the magazine is based in a spiritual family of traditions that are not my own, it is the first periodical I have read cover to cover in many years. I particularly enjoyed how all the articles returned to common themes, resulting in a pluralistic, dialogic exploration of the issues being investigated. I hope you continue to include non-Eastern perspectives in future explorations.

Although I have the highest respect for Ken Wilber, I think dubbing him "a genius recognized in his own time" ("A Spirituality that Transforms") is an example of "making a spiritual package that is pleasing and saleable" (Andrei Codrescu, "The Disappearance of the Outside") that can easily melt in the New Age mind. It is a backhanded compliment to Mr. Wilber, since you (and he) have correctly described "his own time" as being consumed by superficiality, hype and the status quo. Wilber is an impassioned and perceptive commentator and synthetic thinker; however, an inauthentic elevation to the realm of genius sadly highlights the "media ego" of your publication and nothing more. True genius is quite well equipped to reveal itself and does not need to be ordained as such by journalists.

Finally, the title of your publication gave me pause. The question "What is enlightenment?" converts "enlightenment" into a noun, a state of being, when in reality it is a verb, a process of becoming. Enlightenment is not so much a question of "what is," but the how, when, where and who of enlightening. What about switching the title to How Is Enlightening? (Just kidding—or am I?) Put me down for a two-year subscription anyway.
Steven Hecht
via e-mail


Broken Chain
I read with great interest and growing excitement Ken Wilber's passionate and illuminating article in your last issue, and found the distinction that he makes between "translative" and "transformative" teachings important and clarifying. At the same time, it brought up some interesting questions. No one would deny that translative religion is the basic glue that holds societies together. But if we look at the condition that the world is in, couldn't we also say that the existence of different translative religions, all of which claim to be the ultimate interpretation of reality, contributes like nothing else to the conflict and war between societies? Not that religion is the source of the conflict and war in the world—that source lies in the psyche of almost every one of us—but it does seem that the reassurance that religions provide—that ours is the one and only true interpretation of reality—gives an extra-nasty edge to this condition.

Another question has to do with the effect that such translative teachings may have on the individual who begins to feel the precious longing for transcendence. Wouldn't they be better off if they had to struggle until they found a genuine transformative teaching which would reinforce that longing, rather than a religion which, as is true in most cases, would stifle it with dogma? And even if most of us are not ready for a breakthrough, wouldn't many of us be able to bear some degree of the tension of a genuinely transformative teaching—the positive, creative tension between the possibility of total transformation and wherever we stand in relation to that possibility?

Maybe a distinction should be made, when speaking of translative teachings, between those in which a living genuine teacher maintains a clear and dynamic connection between "translative practices" and "ultimate transformation," and those in which this connection has been lost and the ultimate goal of spiritual practice has been forgotten. In the first case, we can truly speak of an "integral approach to spirituality, which combines the best of . . . translative and transformative," but in the latter (which unfortunately seems to be the more common type), the chain has been broken and the two do not meet.

Reading the interview with Deepak Chopra ["The Man with the Golden Tongue"], I was appalled by his answers to your razor-sharp questions, for they revealed the deep corruption and slick pretense that this man emanates. Chopra's goals are clearly materialistic—wealth, health, success, relationships—and stand, therefore, in diametric opposition to spiritual goals. What he advocates is nothing but a strategy for achieving these materialistic goals by pretending to ourselves that we are free from them and do not want anything for ourselves. This is warped and corrupt! Chopra preaches pretense and self-deception to whoever is willing to listen, and then skillfully diverts whatever spiritual impulse he may have awakened in his audience back toward the material world.
A. Freimann
Tel Aviv, Israel


An Obligation to Transform
I thoroughly enjoyed your most recent issue, and can relate especially to the discussion of translation and transformation as my entire life has been transformed this last year. I believe that those of us who are called to question our lives in the most basic ways, those of us who are called to have the honesty and courage to be utterly transformed, have an obligation to surrender to that call completely, without attachments, without expectations. Lately I feel alone in this idea, but strangely content. And that is why I have reread your issue a couple of times! Thank you for affirming what I already knew in my heart and mind to be true.
Lisa Tretout
Longmont, Colorado


What Love's Got to Do with It
I was quite disappointed with Ken Wilber's article in your latest issue. His egghead approach to spirituality lacked that which he tried so desperately to describe. Spirituality is not simply intellectual, it is experiential. As the expression goes, you cannot think your way to heaven, which is what Wilber tries in vain to do. Intellectualizing that which is divine is nothing more than "spiritual masturbation." Not once did Wilber mention the word "love," and although he hinted at the concept of compassion, the hints were quite shallow indeed. Moreover, I found it nothing less than ironic how the discussion about the modern spiritual predicament was sandwiched between advertisements for books, lectures and seminars on spiritual enlightenment. A mixed message?
Brian Luke Seaward
Longmont, Colorado


Mixed Messages
I very much enjoyed the most recent issue of What Is Enlightenment?, which contained several excellent and informative interviews. I did experience a bit of cognitive dissonance, however, in noticing that several of the ads in the journal itself were for groups who, arguably, are bowdlerizing spiritual traditions in precisely the ways being criticized by some of the people who were interviewed. Perhaps there is no easy way around this issue, and I'm sure you've wrestled with it. Perhaps the bottom line is that we're in the kali yuga [dark age] and ought not to expect much more than we're really capable of.
Keep up the good work!
Michael E. Zimmerman
Department of Philosophy, Tulane University
New Orleans, Louisiana

I recently read a copy of your latest issue. Your magazine promotes the very things that it decries—dilution of spirituality, the "enlightenment business."

Awakening has its own agenda.
Mike Flatt
via e-mail

Hurrah for your commentary on the hocus pocus of New Age spirituality. But is there not a hint of hypocrisy in disseminating your message through the use of advertising dollars provided by New Age merchants and spiritual charlatans? When I read What Is Enlightenment? with its abundant free-flow of adjectives like "radical," "challenging" and "uncompromising," I keep wondering how this translates into the nitty-gritty of how we deal with the material world. For instance, I noticed that about thirty percent of your current issue is taken up by advertising. Do you have a long-term business plan in which advertising will play a crucial role, or is this just a way to get started?

Advertising seems to be a particularly thorny issue. On the one hand you can have an "open door" and offer space to anyone willing to pay—irrespective of the possibly dubious nature of what they are trying to sell. Or, you can vet the ads and then end up perhaps wrongly creating the impression that as a magazine you are actually trying to promote everything that is being advertised. Or, you can try to steer some kind of middle course or "acceptable compromise" between the extremes of promotion and prostitution. And this then begs the question which so many people have to grapple with every day in their efforts to make a living: Is there such a thing as an "acceptable" compromise?

In the context of your ongoing exploration of enlightenment, much of what I've said may seem to focus unduly on the mundane, but ultimately, isn't this the real testing ground, the place where it becomes obvious whether we do in fact practice what we preach? If the editors of What Is Enlightenment? are hoping to challenge the legitimacy of spiritual consumerism, why do they so willingly set up shop in the same marketplace? When Jesus went into the temple, he didn't just try to shout over the heads of the money-grubbing traders; he overturned their tables!
Paul Woodward
via e-mail

Editors' response:
We must admit we were a little surprised to suddenly receive so many letters questioning our use of advertising as a way to generate funding. While the question of whether or not to include advertising (and if so, how much and from whom) is indeed an issue we have discussed at great length, we had hoped that our readers would understand the vital role advertising plays in the life of a small, independent magazine. To illustrate the often challenging economic realities of periodical publishing, here is a look at some of the facts and figures behind the production of What Is Enlightenment?

First, for those unfamiliar with magazine publishing, it may come as a surprise to learn that sales revenues never come close to covering even the most basic production costs. Thus, in order to bridge the enormous gap between sales revenues and expenses, magazines must raise additional money either by selling advertising, or through the financial support of charitable foundations and individuals.

In our case, even with an entirely volunteer staff, our sales revenues cover only about 30 percent of the bare costs of production, marketing and distribution. Another 25 percent is paid for by advertising, leaving a deficit of approximately 45 percent for which we depend entirely on charitable contributions. While we are actively seeking major benefactors to help us cover our costs, we have not as yet received any offers to underwrite a significant portion of our production costs.

With interest in our magazine growing by leaps and bounds, all of our costs are also increasing rapidly. So, rather than being in a position to reduce our reliance on advertising, as some of the above letters suggest, we actually need both to sell more advertising and to ask a greater number of our readers to make charitable contributions. This is particularly the case in light of our goal of producing four issues per year (as opposed to the current two issues). To make the leap to publishing quarterly, we would need funds not only to cover double our current production costs but also to pay salaries for some of our currently volunteer staff. For those of you who appreciate the work we are already doing and would like to see us on the stands or in your mailbox more often, we hope you will consider helping us out.

How can you help? First, if you do not already subscribe to WIE, please do. Although the magazine actually costs you slightly less when you subscribe, a much higher percentage of the selling price comes directly to us. Second, you can make a tax-deductible donation. Whether you can afford $10, $100 or $1000, we would be extremely grateful for any help you can give. And third, if you know anyone who might be interested in underwriting our effort to bring a serious and courageous spiritual inquiry into print, please take the time to let them know about our work. We are excited about what we have been able to accomplish with the limited resources we've had available to us, and are eager to see where we can go with a larger stream of support.

On a final note, as the above letters point out, of course not all of those who advertise in our magazine would agree with the content of our editorials. However, like most publications, we have always operated on the assumption that the printing of an advertisement does not constitute an endorsement.

We appreciate your letters. And thank you for your ongoing interest in and support of  What Is Enlightenment?


Star-spangled Blinders
It is a shame that your publication has not yet transcended its American origins and perspective. To read What Is Enlightenment?, one would think that Western materialism and its spiritual wasteland are an exclusively American phenomenon. It is, in fact, a worldwide phenomenon. Western civilization, based largely on Christianity, is now in its decadent phase, and we see the results all around us: the total lack of any sense of meaning, purpose or values; the tendency to make pseudo-religions out of any conceivable trend (particularly "political correctness"); the obsession with sex and physical attractiveness; the perpetuation of socially destructive policies; and the proliferation of New Agers who can't tell self-transcendence from self-indulgence.

In short, the spiritual wasteland that we see all around us is not an American phenomenon. America is a little further down the track of decay than the rest of us, while other countries, like my own, follow with a blindness equaled only by their enthusiasm: a classic case of the blind leading the blind.

In spite of what Americans think, America is not the center of the universe. If you have any interest in improving your publication, the first thing you could do is take off the star-spangled blinders.
Neil Paton
Sydney, Australia