'Intermediate Zone Guru' Nonsense

'Intermediate Zone Gurus' - An Introduction:
This webpage was created to expose Alan Kazlev's hypocrisy, equivocations and erroneous "intermediate zone guru" argument against Sri Sathya Sai Baba. Alan Kazlev claimed on his website that I "never addresses his intellectual arguments" and instead resort to "personal attacks". Needless to say, Alan Kazlev is blind to his own feral and abusive "personal attacks" in which he resorts to gutter and blatant dishonesty (even claiming that I was sexually abused by Sai Baba, was "massaged" with oil by Sai Baba and was perhaps "inspired and uplifted" by Sai Baba's sexual advances!). See: Joe Moreno Refutes Allegations Of Sexual Abuse.

Alan Kazlev (a self-professed "all round eccentric") coined (as he put it) "the somewhat clumsy phrase 'Intermediate Zone Guru'" (Ref) to describe what he subjectively believes to be: Gurus who are not as "enlightened" or as "liberated" as he thinks they ought to be. Therefore, one should not confuse Aurobindo's notable "intermediate zone" phrase with Alan Kazlev's "somewhat clumsy" and non-notable "intermediate zone guru" phrase.

Let us start by taking a look at Sri Aurobindo's original letter and convoluted words pertaining to the alleged "intermediate zone":

- Click Here To Read Sri Aurobindo's Letter About The Intermediate Zone

Sri Aurobindo, Theosophist W. Q. Judge and Paul Brunton have all made reference to the "intermediate zone", which has also been described as:

• The "astral plane".


• "Astral intoxication".


• The "hall of illusion".

The "intermediate zone" argument is a broad-spectrum supposition that essentially states that visions, spirit guides, clairaudience, clairvoyance, channeling, psychic experiences, spiritual experiences, out-of-body experiences, near-death experiences, moments of peace and inner revelations are not true "self-realization". Rather, these experiences arise from an "intermediate zone" that is described as a perilous and deceptive psychological region in-between ordinary consciousness and genuine self-realization.

The "intermediate zone" argument is not an "intellectual" argument. It is a philosophical, subjective, speculative, judgmental and often a self-serving argument. Anyone who has ever had any sort of "spiritual" experience may be a victim to the illusions, deceptions, voices and enticements of the "intermediate zone". Anyone who claims realization, psychic experiences, miracles, visions and experiences of God may also be a victim to the "intermediate zone". Therefore, according to one's likes or dislikes, one can use the "intermediate zone" argument against Jesus, Krishna, Rama, Mohammad, Zarathustra, Moses, Buddha, Mahavir and innumerable other Gurus, Teachers, Spiritual Masters, Avatars, Prophets, Visonaries, etc. After all, there is no objective way to determine whether or not someone is truly "self-realized". Alan Kazlev's methodology in determining which gurus are "intermediate zone gurus" is based solely on his subjective, biased and speculative guesses rooted in his personal likes and dislikes.

Is Alan Kazlev A Victim Of 'The Intermediate Zone'?
Indeed, one can make the argument that Alan Kazlev is being influenced by forces from the "intermediate zone" because he is a believer, promoter and endorser of Integral Transformation, Integral Metaphysics, Reincarnation, Spirit Possession, Trolls, UFOs, Aliens, Alternate Realities, Cosmic Redemption, Planetary Buddhas, Avataric Gurus, Psychic Powers, Devas, Earth Spirits, Elementals, the Occult, Kundalini, Astrology, Karma, Auras, Astral Bodies, Astral Planes, Astral Beings, Geomancy, Theta Magic, Natal Charts, Samskaras, various New Age philosophies, etc.

Alan Kazlev claimed past life associations with Ancient Rome, Atlantis and Ancient Greece on his bio page. Alan Kazlev explicitly stated that he reincarnates two to three times a century and lived past lives as a Polish Kabbalist, a German Soldier and a 19th Century English gentleman-scholar, philosopher theologian and naturalist raised as a British Israelite (Refs: 01 - 02). Of course, Alan Kazlev's spiritual experiences and spiritual claims are all indicative of the very "intermediate zone" he warns others about. Consequently, Alan Kazlev is not credible because he very well may be possessed by the voices, deceptions, sounds and sights of the perilous "astral realms".

Alan Kazlev said the following about Sathya Sai Baba:

"I always had a good vibe from Sai Baba, and i still do, but i distanced myself because of what i heard (and the huge rumour-mill on the internet)...Yeah he once healed me from the astral plane. So i knew he was genuine!"

"Yet in addition to this more positive Intermediate Zone energy, I have also felt a very ugly and slimy astral energy associated with the sexual abuse. It may be that a lower astral adverse entity is using the human Sai Baba as a puppet to inflict suffering on many."

Therefore, Alan Kazlev claimed he was "healed on the astral plane" and implied he has psychic powers to feel an "ugly and slimy astral energy associated with sexual abuse". Since the "intermediate zone" deals with astral and psychic perceptions, one could argue that Alan Kazlev might be getting his impressions from false voices in the astral realms (which would explain his egotistic opinions, bold-faced untruths, flippant arguments and feral attacks against his detractors). Thank you Sri Aurodbindo, Theosophist W. Q. Judge and Paul Brunton!

It is peculiar that for someone who is not self-realized, Alan Kazlev postures himself as an authority on people who may or may not be self-realized!

Were Aurobindo & The Mother Victims Of 'The Intermediate Zone'?
What greater deception could a conniving and ghoulish Astral Entity from the "intermediate zone" perpetuate than to deceive people into thinking that Sri Aurobindo and Mother Mirra were above the "intermediate zone" and were thereby self-realized? Sri Aurobindo and Mother Mirra claimed special and unique knowledge about the spiritual path and self-realization. It may come as a surprise to many that Sri Aurobindo and Mother Mirra were said to have communicated with each other telepathically and claimed that they used the "Force" (an "intermediate zone" buzz word) to have influenced the events of the Second World War against Hitler because he was under the possession of an Asuric (demonic) being who called himself "The Lord of the Nations, Master of the Earth" (Ref). As a matter of the fact, the following was written about Aurobindo, Mother Mirra and Hitler:

"Mother and Sri Aurobindo participated in the affairs of the earth and the universe according to the mission and the work they were doing. When it was clear that the Second World War was inevitable, they saw the Lord of Nations leading Hitler on and urging him to conquer the world with very tall promises. The Lord of Nations, it was said, appeared before Hitler in a dazzling light in shining white armour and gave him detailed advice. Sri Aurobindo called this war, 'Mother's war.' He used to send his spiritual force in support of the Allies and eagerly awaited the results of individual battles. At every important turning point of the war, Sri Aurobindo took great interest. At the famous Dunkirk battle where the British troops were miraculously saved, it was reported that the fog in the atmosphere served the British navy well. Sri Aurobindo used to refer to that with a smile as the 'mysterious fog'. When Hitler was gaining success after success and Mother was trying in the opposite direction, she said the shining being who was guiding Hitler used to come to the Ashram from time to time to see what was happening. Things changed from bad to worse. Mother decided on a fresh strategy. She took on the appearance of that shining being, appeared before Hitler and advised him to attack Russia. On her way back to the Ashram, she met that being. The being was intrigued by Mother having stolen a march over him. Hitler's attack on Russia ensured his downfall." (Ref)

That's right; Sri Aurobindo and Mother Mirra were alleged to have waged a war on the astral plane (aka "intermediate zone") by using astral powers against an astral demon radiating dazzling light. Therefore, Aurobindo and the Mother's teachings, visions and alleged powers may have originated from the "intermediate zone" and not from genuine self-realization.

'The Intermediate Zone' - In Conclusion
The "intermediate zone" theory can be used to invalidate other's spiritual experiences and can also be used to induce fear, paranoia and doubt about one's spiritual practices and endeavors. Let it go on record that I do not believe that Alan Kazlev, Sri Aurobindo or Mother Mirra were under the influence of sinister energies from the "intermediate zone". This article was written to expose how information can be used and abused to further one's own biased agenda against Gurus or Spiritual Teachers. I think it is safe to say that many people who have had spiritual experiences know they are not "self-realized". For a person who may claim "self-realization", there is simply no empirical or objective methodology to establish the veracity of that claim.

Sathya Sai Baba's miracles (which have been reported in unprecedented numbers on a global scale) are indicative (if true) of spiritual attainment unknown in human history. For example, see:

• Sai Baba Manifestations At Sai Sruti Temple in Harrow, Middlesex, UK


• Sathya Sai Baba Vibhuti Manifestations in a Devotee's House in London


• Satya Sai Baba Vibuthi Manfestations In Bali, Indonesia


• Sai Baba Manifestations In Colusa, California


• Sai Baba Manifestations At Sri Ragnapatnam, Mysore, India


• Sai Sruti's Sai Baba Miracle Photos Galleries

Alan Kazlev argued (unconvincingly) that Sai Baba is a "serial sex abuser". Alan Kazlev believes the allegations against Sai Baba although he conceded (several times) that he did not have the "patience", "inclination", "time" or "interest" to research the Sai Controversy for himself. Consequently, it is not surprising that Alan Kazlev disseminates half truths and whole lies against Sathya Sai Baba and me. The truth speaks for itself:

• Sathya Sai Baba has never been convicted of any crime.


• Sathya Sai Baba has never been charged with any crime.


• Sathya Sai Baba has never had even one single complaint lodged against him by any alleged victim, first-hand, in India. As a matter of fact, not even one alleged victim has even tried to file a basic police complaint or court case against Sathya Sai Baba in India (the only place where courts would have jurisdiction over Baba as an individual defendant: Ref) and all of the alleged victims refused free "world-class legal resources" from Ex-Devotees (Ref).

It is also peculiar that for someone who postures himself as a moral authority concerning various Guru's alleged behaviors, Alan Kazlev is a plagiarist, posted "images of a pornographic kind" on his website (Ref) and published two cyberpunk stories replete with filthy speech and graphic, sexual content (Refs: 01 - 02).

In conclusion, Alan Kazlev's self-described "intellectual arguments" are not so "intellectual" after all. He coined "the somewhat clumsy phrase 'Intermediate Zone Guru'" by twisting and extrapolating on Sri Aurobindo's words. The end result is a "somewhat clumsy" argument that is nothing more than camouflage for a lack of original ideas.

Questioning Alan Kazlev's Redefinitions

"Questioning Kazlev's Redefinitions", a response to the recent Integral World essay

A close reading of Sections 2, 3, 4, and 6 of M. Alan Kazlev's Essay "Redefining Integral" published in Integral World. Cross-posted to Joe Perez's Weblog.

In Section 2, "The Problem", Kazlev attacks views prominent "especially in America and on the Internet", especially "Integral forums such as the Integral Naked website and What is Enlightenment? magazine". Presumably, he is refering to the Integral Naked online forums, a medium with many hundreds or thousands of active users. But criticizing online chat rooms as a way of attacking the forum sponsor is invalid. It's like criticizing a magazine based on their published "letters to the editor", or a Weblog based on the comments of its readers, or a writer based on the contents of her or his fan mail. Attacking the usually anonymous posters to an online forum is not a valid way of criticizing Ken Wilber, though it may have validity if Kazlev is seeking to paint a portrait of the "Integral Movement." But there is no substantiation provided in Kazlev's article for the conclusions that he draws: that the Integral Movement is a:

"spiritual narrowing ... trivialisation ... misrepresentation ... lacking in spiritual insight ... overintellectual ... lack of true understanding ...
Californian feel-good holistic lifestyle ... secularised"

etc. To persuade, Kazlev must cite research on the Integral Movement of some sort, and cite specific examples for each point he wants to win. However, he cites no specific emails, Weblog posts, forum posts, articles, or dialogues. As a result, what he presents amounts to nothing more than an opinion, perhaps based on hunches or gut feelings, without substantiation. Such opinions are notoriously subject to psychological projection, as when Kazlev writes an article in an academic style and uses this style to claim that his opponents are guilty of "overintellectual approach". Perhaps there is truth to Kazlev's charges, but it's hard to say since there is no evidence cited.

In Section 3, "The Need for a Definition of What Constitutes 'Integral'", Kazlev once again makes additional attacks against the Integral Movement: "narrowness ... religiosity ... personality[-centered] ... head-centered", etc. But once again he fails to cite examples or evidence to make his case. In this section he refers to an "emerging Post-Wilberian community and discourse" which represents a "broader Integralism" because it "incorporates many other teachings and themes". Intriguing. Which teachings and themes are included that are excluded from the Integral Movement? Kazlev doesn't say, nor does he cite evidence that such teachings are in fact excluded from the Integral Movement. But Kazlev's main point is that each of many different theorists has their own definition of "integral". This point is indisputable. Therefore he offers definitions for five distinct entities: Wilberism, Integral Movement, Larger Integral movement sensu stricto, Integral Movement sensu lato, and Integral Yoga. He also provides a graphical "genealogy" of Integral groups. Whether these distinctions are helpful or unhelpful, I suggest, depends on how stupid you think people are or how grandiose is your rhetoric. Wilberism, according to Kazlev, includes only those who "follow [Wilber] in a religious or uncritical way" (presumably these are the dumbest sheep of the herd). The Larger Integral Movement emerged in 2003-2005, says Kazlev, and (as if size is everything) it is certainly more grandiose than the narrow IM. However, it's not clear why this group should not be included within the IM sensu stricto or if it should be considered a splinter movement and therefore a very small movement indeed (consisting perhaps of a handful of disgruntled but vocal critics). Kazlev presumes to grant these critics such importance as to make their approach the Larger than the Smaller IM, but it's not the very Largest. The Largest Integral Movement (or Integral Movement sensu lato) includes the above groups plus those who practice Integral Yoga or other paths as an Integralist. Since Kazlev is a member of this group which happens also to be the largest, broadest, and most inclusive of them all, one suspects that these definitions are rather self-serving. They may or may not be helpful, but they definitely privilege those folks who consider themselves Integralist but who walk a path as far from Ken Wilber as possible. This map therefore seems to smack of the venting of a personal grudge rather than a neutral and objective look at the territory.

In Section 4, "The Basic Thesis", Kazlev tells us that the definitions of Integral include "at least five ... evolutionary stages of individual and collective consciousness" with the first two being the Integral sensu lato and the Post-Integral. Interestingly, Kazlev argues definitely that these stages "will emerge in a progressively shorter and more overlapping time-frame". He then attributes this view to "Wilber and his holon hypothesis", but distinguishes his view from Wilber's because Kazlev does not believe that evolution occurs in "as rigid and inflexible a manner as Wilber himself describes". Wilber himself has repeatedly responsed to charges that his evolutionary model is rigid and inflexible (for example, in the Introduction to the revised version of Sex, Ecology, Spirituality), and has elaborated on the many ways that his model allows for a great deal of flexibility. Since Kazlev does not enter this dialogue, and instead only reasserts charges that have been countered, his remarks seem perfunctory and unsupported. Moreover, Wilber never claims that successive stages of evolution "will emerge in a progressively shorter and more overlapping time-frame" (because if they did that would be rather rigid and inflexible), but Kazlev himself makes this rigid and inflexible assertion.

In Section 6, "A New Definition", I want to focus on one huge problem. Kazlev distinguishes his new theory based on five different definitions of integral, the first being a pseudo-definition. Why pseudo? Because it's religious.

"Integral as a New Age cult or religion. One finds this most developed among the more enthusiastic followers of Ken Wilber, who refer to everything they do as 'integral'. This is the only use of Integral that I find dysfunctional (I am not a fan of religion)."

Unfortunately, Kazlev falls into the same trap as many contemporary pop-atheist writers: he does not define religion, but writes as if everyone knows what he is talking about, and then attacks it as "dysfunctional" and a "cult" without actually making any useful distinctions between the different varieties of religion. Moreover, his rhetoric goes over the top of civility by painting unnamed persons as members of a "cult" without substantiating these allegations with any serious attention to any of their words or actions.

At this point, Kazlev's essay continues to a total of 24 sections. However, when so many of the foundational theses of his argument have such shaky basis, the value of continuing to study Kazlev's essay becomes highly dubious. On the other hand, if you don't need evidence to believe Kazlev's points because you are already convinced of their truth, then you can take his essay as an exercise in storytelling narrative grounded in faith.

I will, however, make one additional point. The thrust of Kazlev's argument may be characterized as saying that Ken Wilber does not recognize the higher "Post-Integral" stages of consciousness such as Divinisation recognized by Sri Aurobindo. However, this is prima facie false. In Integral Spirituality, Wilber identifies the Integral level of consciousness with the turquoise label, and then identifies indigo, violet, ultraviolet, and clear light labels for subsequent stages of consciousness (stages which are actually defined using the labels of Sri Aurobindo's philosophy). Those Post-Integral levels of consciousness are not the focus of his book because he is writing for a specific audience. However, any claim that Wilber ignores Sri Aurobindo should at least examine Wilber's relevant writings and identify their insufficiency (how is Divinisation really different from the stage of consciousness identified as ultraviolet or clear light in Wilber's Integral Spirituality? Does not Wilber incorporate Aurobindo's gnosis, but simply not make the transmission of this gnosis the focus of his book?). Without offering a close reading of Wilber's relevant texts, Kazlev's screed sheds less light than he thinks it does. And given the bombast of his anti-Wilber rhetoric, it will probably do little to encourage the mainstream Integral movement to take up the study of Aurobindo.

I find much value in Kazlev's serious attention to the Aurobindian tradition. It would be a terrible shame if serious students of Integral were put off study of this wise and valuable tradition because they encountered a presentation which regarded others in the IM with such a demeaning and derogatory framework.