Mr Ebert is right to point out the death denial driving Wilber’s project. You can even see it in tragic form in the book he wrote about his wife dying of Cancer. In that book, he goes out of his way to deny any kind of emotional bond transcending death, dismissing it as superstition. The whole book is about him and his wife struggling between fighting the cancer and accepting her meaningless death. He cannot fathom any meaningful soulful context to her disease and death, so, as Ebert points out is characteristic of our culture, his only option is denial because no one can accept meaninglessness. Something Mr. Ebert passes over quickly is this difference between death denial and death transcendence—something crucial to Wilber’s confusion and the confusion of so many people these days. Previous societies, whether they focused on this life or the next, had a way of framing life as meaningful. Whether their beliefs transcended or accepted death, life had meaning beyond just living for its own sake. Wilber’s Buddhism, shorne as it is of any supernatural or religious aspects, leaves life with no meaning other than a process of transcending all that context and content of culture, a process that leads not into an afterlife or soul life, but into nothingness. And so he oscillates between the two truths of Shankara that Aurobindo deconstructed with his Integral philosophy in the Life Divine.