History and Dharma (5)
In the previous post (#4) I have briefly outlined the average/advanced model, used by Ken Wilber in "Up from Eden" to explain the difference in structure that most frequently goes with exoteric vs. esoteric views and their representatives. Pope John XXII and Meister Eckhart are definitely not to be placed in the same structure, hence the latter was tried by the first as a heretic. The example of Meister Eckhart (and Giordano Bruno etc.) perfectly illustrates how adequate (read: favorable) conditions in all four quadrants are necessary for growing in structures (even when, or especially when, you are awake in all states). And now, let's have a look at the W-C-Lattice.
As stated earlier, individuals and groups and societies at large develop through stages of structural increasing complexity, unevenly in various developmental lines. On the other hand, authentic contemplative training is mainly a matter of state-training, which itself evolves in stages. These two kinds of development have confused researchers for some time, so that twenty years ago, for example, the stages of mystical realization would be put on top of the more conventional structures (like in the average/advanced model). However, the W-C-L makes the important distinction of state and structures, that finally makes it possible to understand some deeper dynamics at work, namely discerning the development in state-stages and structure-stages as quasi-independent. As it mostly relates to the ULQ, being a synthesis of zone#1 and zone#2 discoveries, this is truly the 21st century abhidharma.
If you look at the diagram, at left/vertical we have one version of structural stages (this example shows Gebser's terms), given as archaic to magic to mythic to rational to pluralistic to integral with an arrow pointing at further structures. On the top/horizontal we find four major types of mysticism, based on the natural states inhabited by every conscious human, namely waking, dreaming, sleeping and fundamental awareness (even babies inhabit them).
In order to demonstrate the importance of this distinction, let us consider a path of an individual: one is born into archaic and by the age of 25 will stabilize a structural center of gravity somewhere on the left line; at that age, in our example, one undertakes meditative training and experiences a series of inner awakenings that may be sequential (e.g. gross to subtle to causal) or may be focused on one of the states (e.g. formless emptiness). When one comes out of meditation, the experience itself will be filtered and interpreted and embodied through the structural level one has developed, whether mythic or integral. On the other hand, one may develop to a very high altitude structurally (this still allows for uneven development in particular lines, and split off subjectivity, i.e. shadow, at any level) without ever taking the "right turn" into state-training.
For example, one may become a salon Buddhist, by adopting the conceptual referents of Lankavatara or Avatamsaka sutra into a green altitude ("pluralistic") mindset, without developing any state-competence, except perhaps occasional "raw" peak-experiences or even spontaneous bursts of subtle illuminations or causal blackouts. On the other hand, one may stabilize at orange altitude/rational (in terms of a center of gravity, with all sorts of variations between lines and some type of shadow) and develop quite a competence in states.
We know examples of masters of meditation having strongly ethnocentric, xenophobic attitudes. We also have high-developed individuals quite unaware of the potential inherent in contemplative training. This is not only a matter of one line of development, while certainly a spiritual or meditative line may be considered. At any rate, first it's crucial to recognize that state-training does not guarantee structure-growth, or vice versa.
(to be continued)
As stated earlier, individuals and groups and societies at large develop through stages of structural increasing complexity, unevenly in various developmental lines. On the other hand, authentic contemplative training is mainly a matter of state-training, which itself evolves in stages. These two kinds of development have confused researchers for some time, so that twenty years ago, for example, the stages of mystical realization would be put on top of the more conventional structures (like in the average/advanced model). However, the W-C-L makes the important distinction of state and structures, that finally makes it possible to understand some deeper dynamics at work, namely discerning the development in state-stages and structure-stages as quasi-independent. As it mostly relates to the ULQ, being a synthesis of zone#1 and zone#2 discoveries, this is truly the 21st century abhidharma.
If you look at the diagram, at left/vertical we have one version of structural stages (this example shows Gebser's terms), given as archaic to magic to mythic to rational to pluralistic to integral with an arrow pointing at further structures. On the top/horizontal we find four major types of mysticism, based on the natural states inhabited by every conscious human, namely waking, dreaming, sleeping and fundamental awareness (even babies inhabit them).
In order to demonstrate the importance of this distinction, let us consider a path of an individual: one is born into archaic and by the age of 25 will stabilize a structural center of gravity somewhere on the left line; at that age, in our example, one undertakes meditative training and experiences a series of inner awakenings that may be sequential (e.g. gross to subtle to causal) or may be focused on one of the states (e.g. formless emptiness). When one comes out of meditation, the experience itself will be filtered and interpreted and embodied through the structural level one has developed, whether mythic or integral. On the other hand, one may develop to a very high altitude structurally (this still allows for uneven development in particular lines, and split off subjectivity, i.e. shadow, at any level) without ever taking the "right turn" into state-training.
For example, one may become a salon Buddhist, by adopting the conceptual referents of Lankavatara or Avatamsaka sutra into a green altitude ("pluralistic") mindset, without developing any state-competence, except perhaps occasional "raw" peak-experiences or even spontaneous bursts of subtle illuminations or causal blackouts. On the other hand, one may stabilize at orange altitude/rational (in terms of a center of gravity, with all sorts of variations between lines and some type of shadow) and develop quite a competence in states.
We know examples of masters of meditation having strongly ethnocentric, xenophobic attitudes. We also have high-developed individuals quite unaware of the potential inherent in contemplative training. This is not only a matter of one line of development, while certainly a spiritual or meditative line may be considered. At any rate, first it's crucial to recognize that state-training does not guarantee structure-growth, or vice versa.
(to be continued)
Labels: buddhism, integral, religion, spirituality, wilber
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home