Integrative Spirituality

*crossposted from zaadz *to see comments, go there

Discovery of freedom is a process wherein simplicity and complexity conspire to dismantle all our preconceptions. I was invited by Julian Walker to contribute on the subject of “Integrative Spirituality: Grounded Contemporary Perspectives”. There's nothing revolutionary in this post, as it's mainly an attempt to clarify my own thoughts. Not being a native English speaker, I only aspire to provide an excuse for some fine discussion. I will deliberately avoid any lingo, or a specific religious framework. Without imposing on readers an inclusivistic platform, this is a deliberately fragmented record of what came to mind, a smorgasbord of sorts. The context for each of these subjects is provided by existing discussions here at Zaadz, which have been sometimes muffled in contesting statements. It seems true that in order to have a constructive exchange, we need to find a common ground and proceed cautiosly. Feel free to choose your favorite fragment.

. . .

“Long live chains!”
Freedom is not about safety, or conformity, or identity. Therefore, the bare possibility of freedom is in itself sufficient to engender a recoil in confused, veiled awareness. Consciousness being by it's very nature effulgent and expansive, such recoil causes a constriction in the manner we relate to self, others, life and death. In this constrictive mode, experience appears to become effusive and uncontrollable, so we project our defenses, to make the moment more manageable. Thought, exhibiting extreme plasticity, becomes our main tool in restricting reality into availability. Instead of using thought to probe and investigate the present mode of experiencing, we mindlessly hope to think our way out of trouble or, even worse, decline to use inquiry at all, immersing ourselves into further mindless experiencing or fancy wishcraft.

Consideration of regressive tendencies will get us only so far. We actually need to apply thoroughly what we really know through what we do, and begin the process of debunking the promises of spiritual naivete. It's a matter of responsibility and ethical sensitivity to cultivate such capacity for inquiry. Being aware of our limitations as individuals means also feeling into the pain of being separate. Lacking heart, some will seek for what they imagine has been lost, and so will tend to look back, wishing yesterday was tomorrow. Life, as observable, has no such qualms. Actually there is no returning. The only way of being in the world is onward.

Reason
While faith and doubt are genuine aspects of inquiry, beliefs generate a certain opacity, as well as a marked resistance to clarification (guess how many Buddhists have explicit definitions of rebirth, refuge, or nirvana, that really mean something to them). In a way, beliefs are to society what defenses are to psyche, and in that sense they serve a function. It's certainly telling that none of mere beliefs - i.e. whatever those are for a given society and culture - were ever considered necessary for awakening. The matured faculty of inquiry, however, is always presumed. Also, it is fundamental to this post/modern culture, and our way of being in the world. Standing on the shoulders of reason, we can face the visionary world, and accept the challenge of authenticity, dignity and fearlessness.

Being here
Being ordinary is essential, even though it's quite impossible to define what would constitute fundamental normality, since it seems to always be a matter of tension between openness and convention. Fundamental normality is not social normalcy, though the latter may appear as a sterilized expression of the former, and be of some support when we seek balance. Ultimately, however, even being weird is a luxury, generally less available as our spirituality matures (even by Aleister Crowley's standards!). One comes to appreciate normality as something exceptional, inherent in the natural way our senses work and our mind cogitates. Granted “normality” as a notion is being transformed irrecoverably through the process of spiritual inquiry and unfolding, even so much that one might think of purification. There is a sense in which normality functions as an anchor in the open field of reality-expanse, somewhat similar to nirmanakaya in the esoteric Buddhist notion of two/three/four/five bodies. There is something decent and basic and skilfull in the ability to retain and exhibit conventions, while your innermost experience stands open as infinity. This is also known as ordinary mind, unbound by convention or eccentricity. In esoteric Buddhist thought, interestingly enough, each thing is a limpid symbol of what ultimately is.

Beyond Thought
There are at least two major meanings of “beyond thought”. In the absolute sense, “beyond thought” is that which is beyond any form whatsoever, that which is already beyond any distinction and conceptualization - namely, the immediate Supreme Reality. Suchness, it would seem, is neither hidden nor revealed - rather, it is obvious. Even so, thought can express and convey some sense of that which transcends it and makes it possible, and of which it too is an expression, as evidenced by these very words here on your screen. Of course words never contain an experience, irrespective of it's status - whether smell, sadness, or samadhi - but that's beside the point. We use negations, symbols, metaphors and paradoxical language, and, as long as these are rooted in present realization and a culture of non-literalism, such intimations work just fine.

In the relative sense, “beyond thought” is that which is unfolding in further development of the present identity itself. In this sense, moving beyond one's present limitations is a worthwhile purpose. The relative realm is profoundly developmental, now we know, and that in itself is an important modern contribution, waiting to be engraved in every spiritual platform, ancient or contemporary. When these two beyonds meet in open space of pristine knowing, boundless feeling, and uninhibited expression, there is the potential for authentic integrative spirituality bursting free into the fullness of the world.

A Spiritual Gyro
Practice is perfect. For example, in the current mode of integral discourse, there are many technical terms, as well as rich elaborations. But the basic idea is actually quite straightforward: reality in its entirety is incredibly complex, but we still need a doable way to be inclusive and balanced, and yet open to unfolding novelty. A typical list suggests a minimum number of reference points, so the traditional “body-speech-mind” becomes “body-mind-spirit-shadow”, which then translates into fundamental aspects of a well-rounded practice. A very simple formula actually points to an infinite complexity. Does that help us? Sure it does. We may find these sorts of ideas so self-evident, that we tend to forget how lost one can get in any one of those basic reference points at the expense of everything else in their lives. (*a survey of practices and cycles may be found in Roger Walsh ”Essential Spirituality” and Jack Kornfield ”A Path with Heart”)

Spirituality in purely transcendent sense is an incredibly immediate and straightforward business, its exclusive task being liberation and awakening, here and now. Yet, if spirituality is seen also as that process which uncovers new degrees of depth and authenticity in this self, in our lives and relationships, beyond mere individuation, both pre-enlightenment and post-enlightenment, then we certainly can benefit from a comprehensive strategy.

Such process will necessarily depend on many developmental streams and their effective integration. To merge mind and body, to balance intellect and devotion, to fuse stillness and activity, to recognize relative and absolute - these are the stepping stones of such a strategy, and the tools used may cover a relatively wide spectrum, including ethics, study, awareness, shadow work, meditation, ritual, relationships, isolation, training in states, sexuality, bodywork etc. if you're so inclined. Because of such breadth, it's rather easy to lose focus and purpose. Therefore, I hold it's paramount to have a core practice, one that need not be sophisticated or intricate. Ideally, such core practice should resonate with one's personal inspiration, would be pursued with a teacher, and relying on the wisdom and experience of lineage. Then one can supplement and build around such core practice in accordance with culture, conditions and capacities.

Methods of practice are always mode-specific, requiring appropriate intentions and conditions, and recently David Deida (video here) has suggested three modes of therapy, yoga, and spiritual practice (dealing respectively with restoring functionality at any level, increasing flow and transparency, and introducing spontaneous nondual recognition). It's a crucial distinction, since a method designed for yogic purposes may not serve us very well in therapetuic efforts. These three modes, Deida warns us, have very little in common. Various methods are also stage-specific, like any other form of growth, education and cultivation. There's a dialectic at work in development. (For many additional distinctions that clarify facets of development-and-enlightenment, like translation vs. transformation, precon vs. postcon, states vs. stages, and potential for various fallacies, see Ken Wilber ”Integral Psychology” and ”Integral Spirituality”, or for beginners ”No Boundary”.)

To wrap it up: know what it is you're specifically doing, be clear about it and the rules of the game, and then do it diligently. Combine daily and intensive practice, without procrastination. Avoid obsessions and perfectionism, but aim high.

So what is spirit?
In conventional views, spirit is life-force, and spirit is faith, reason, insight, acceptance and diversity, impersonal and transpersonal, and spirit is even the nonlocal quantum field, not to say it is perhaps nonexistent! Those are all concepts, attempts to delineate that which cannot be divided. For the contemplative and mystic - spirit is source, ground, silence, true self, ineffable, impartial, bliss, end of afflictions, limpid, formless, spacious, witness, intelligent, sapient, loving, compassionate, nondual suchness… These Holy names are actually the briefest pointing-out instructions, evoking a flash of recognition in a receptive mind. They also provide a summary of teachings.

Yet, all descriptions fail to grasp what is, by definition, if any such is accepted, beyond grasp. What if spirit is all of that and more, yet utterly plain and simple, given all at once? Seen in retrospective of many thousands of years, the meanings and experiences of spirit have been unfolding in progressive subtlety and nakedness.

Reduced to a single reference that allows for all perspectives to coexist, while setting them along the gradient of depth and inclusiveness, the awakening of spirit is simply the discovery of ever fresh freedom.

Post scriptum

“The physical living situation is the only way to relate with our lives as such. I do not believe in the mystical world, the ethereal world, the world of the unseen, unknown or whatever. There is no reason to believe in it, because we don't perceive it. Belief comes from perception. If there's no perception of something, we don't believe it. Belief does not come from manufacturing ideas. There may be millions of arguments and logics set forth, saying that there is an unseen world that operates on higher levels of consciousness, a world which fulfills human concerns, punishes those who don't believe, and so forth. […] I'm afraid I'm not going to say that there is another world. The world that we live in is the only world.” Chogyam Trungpa

This quote encapsulates what I feel is the fundamental spiritual situation we all share. We need sanity, and a shared sanity. To that end, we ought to jolt ourselves into a fresh perspective on the very meaning of spirituality, and that has something to do with where we are together right now.

. . .