More of a Question ........

I have been experiencing another bit of a hiccup as I read more CAC assigned texts.  The most recent of which have been:

(which has been difficult to plough through at times due to Panikkar's use of Christian language/concepts in ways I am not familiar with).

and.............

Both texts are interesting and put forward engaging points of view,  explanations and/or arguments...... and as a result,  I find myself wondering, why do we need to explain anything?  Wilbur states: 

The Great Nest, involution and evolution, levels of being and knowing: those were some of the profound contributions of the great saints and sages of the premodern world, and can indeed be found in everything from the Enneads of Plotinus to the Lankavatara Sutra to The Life Divine of Aurobindo, all expressions of the great metaphysical systems. But there is one item we should perhaps keep in mind as we moderns attempt to assess those ideas: the great metaphysical systems were, in the last analysis, interpretive frameworks that the sages gave to their spiritual experiences. These schemes, such as the Great Chain, were interpretations of living experiences—they were not some sort of fixed, rigid, ontological grids that are true for all eternity. If, in the following, I question the adequacy of some of these interpretations, I am not at all questioning the authenticity of the experiences or realizations of these great sages. I am simply suggesting that, as evolution itself continues to move forward, new horizons can be used to recontextualize and reframe these experiences in interpretive meshworks that are more adequate in the light of modern and postmodern contributions, so that the net result is something of an integration of the very best of premodern, modern, and postmodern forms of Spirit’s own unfolding.

Wilber, Ken. Integral Spirituality: A Startling New Role for Religion in the Modern and Postmodern World (p. 218). Shambhala. Kindle Edition. 

.....and the question arises: Why must "experience" be built upon in any way?  Why must it be codified?  Why must experience/being be explained?  In this question I see the attraction of traditional zen, where masters eschewed speech as conveyor of "meaning" and pointed others to "pure" experience/being unmediated by concepts by using verbal "nonsense" and physical actions (and non-actions :)

The trap of all the above Whys? for me is a retreat into "arhat-ship" Once that is recognized, both the Zen Master's slap and the Theologian and/or Philosopher's treatise take on the same function - to share, to help others. (Of course this supposes the method has not become a stage for "ego")  :D

My enneagram (I'm a 9) says that sloth is a "problem" area for me and perhaps this reaction is just another example of this slothful being.  It has been my experience though, that "IS" takes a lot less energy than "WHY IS"