Wilber as a Buddhist philosopher, psychologist, yogi - I must admit, I find....well, laughable.
But perhaps he raises an interesting Hegelian challenge to all of us: can we consider ourselves as part of a greater historical unfolding?
On this point, I agree we must give Wilber the benefit of the doubt. This is a worthwhile thought experiment. It opens onto a second question: if we are on the edge of a greater historical unfolding, then who are we
, the first ones to catch on to this historical tendency? Does this make "us" early adapters somehow special, or does it put us in a position of responsibility for the care of others? I think for Wilber it means an endless series of self-congratulatory interviews with the likes of Andrew Cohen, in which they high-five each other on constituting the vanguard of evolutionary consciousness. Rockstars, Rude Boys, "God is not a Gentleman," &c: this kind of thinking can go sideways, and may have already done so in this case.
That said, this notion of world-historical emergence and immanence of awakening is hardly foreign to the Buddhist tradition. Wonhyo had some interesting things to say about this, for instance; see the translation, Cultivating Original Enlightenment
, trans. Buswell.
(I still think Dunayevskaya, Marcuse, even Zizek have more convincing readings of Hegel than Wilber has... his conflation of Nagarjuna and Schelling in Sex, Ecology, and Spirituality
is something of a train wreck)
Hegelianism - I admit to being too conceited to even bother engaging with his work. From the distance of my conceit, I see similar things as you - self-congratulations, entrepreneurial intentions, grandiose and inflated identity....
Actually I did read something of his quite recently - it was a short essay justifying a capitalist reform of Buddhism. In the spirit of Hegel, I'm happy to put myself on the
side of that dialectic.